COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report The rule of law situation in the European Union
Date: 2022-07-13
Institutions: European Commission, Secretariat-General
Subjects: Slovenia, coronavirus disease, corruption, democracy, epidemic, independence of the judiciary, infringement of EU law, pluralism in the media, political rights, rule of law

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Luxembourg, 13.7.2022  SWD(2022) 524 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT 2022 Rule of Law Report        Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia Accompanying the document Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions 2022 Rule of Law Report          The rule of law situation in the European Union {COM(2022) 500 final} - {SWD(2022) 501 final} - {SWD(2022) 502 final} - {SWD(2022) 503 final} - {SWD(2022) 504 final} - {SWD(2022) 505 final} - {SWD(2022) 506 final} - {SWD(2022) 507 final} - {SWD(2022) 508 final} - {SWD(2022) 509 final} - {SWD(2022) 510 final} - {SWD(2022) 511 final} - {SWD(2022) 512 final} - {SWD(2022) 513 final} - {SWD(2022) 514 final} - {SWD(2022) 515 final} - {SWD(2022) 516 final} - {SWD(2022) 517 final} - {SWD(2022) 518 final} - {SWD(2022) 519 final} - {SWD(2022) 520 final} - {SWD(2022) 521 final} - {SWD(2022) 522 final} - {SWD(2022) 523 final} - {SWD(2022) 525 final} - {SWD(2022) 526 final} - {SWD(2022) 527 final}  
 
 
ABSTRACT 

The  Slovenian  justice  system  has  seen  some  improvements  in  quality  and  efficiency,  and 
regarding issues raised in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, such as the nomination of European 
Delegated Prosecutors. Improvements to the Judicial Council Act, including on disciplinary 
framework,  are  in  preparation.  However,  concerns  have  been  raised  over  the  Minister  of 
Interior’s powers to instruct the Police in individual cases, potentially affecting independent 
work  of  state  prosecutors  and  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office.  Rules  governing 
parliamentary inquiries lack safeguards on independence of judges and state prosecutors – as 
required  by  Constitutional  Court 
judgments.  The  Government  decreased,  without 
consultation  with  judicial  authorities,  the  previously  agreed  budget  for  courts,  the  Judicial 
Council  and  the  State  Prosecution.  The  Judicial  Council  launched  procedures  for 
constitutional review of salaries of judges. 

Work started on a new national anti-corruption strategy, but the timeline for adoption is not 
yet  known.  The  resources  of  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  are  being 
increased.  The  Government  aims  to  strengthen  the  rules  on  whistleblower  protection. 
However, the number of prosecutions has decreased to their lowest level in recent years. The 
State  Prosecution  Service  faced  challenges,  including  on  human  resources  and  due  to  the 
short  statute  of  limitation.  Furthermore,  institutions  in  the  fight  against  corruption  are 
concerned about  continuing challenges to the independence of  their work. Serious concerns 
exist  regarding  the  independent  work  of  the  anti-corruption  police,  including  the  National 
Bureau  of  Investigation.  The  number  of  Police  investigations  of  corruption  has  dropped. 
Several  actions  have  been  implemented  during  the  COVID-19  pandemic  with  the  aim  to 
address the risk of corruption, especially in public procurement.  

Since  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  situation  of  media  freedom  and  pluralism  has  not 
improved. The independence of the audio-visual media services regulator is ensured by law, 
however  challenges  remain  regarding  the  commitment  to  strengthen  its  independence, 
particularly  through  the  proposed  amending  legislation.  The  legislation  aimed  to  transpose 
the Audiovisual Media Services Directive has been adopted. A regulatory gap for addressing 
high concentration of media raises concerns. After delays in payments which were considered 
by  stakeholders  as  politically  motivated  and  led  to  a  number  of  staff  leaving,  the  financial 
viability  for  2021  and  2022  was  ensured  for  the  Slovenian  Press  Agency.  Despite  legal 
safeguards  providing  for  the  independence  of  public  service  media,  there  are  challenges 
regarding their effectiveness in practice in limiting political influence. A hostile environment, 
online  harassment  of  and  threats  against  journalists  are  growing  sources  of  concern,  and 
several lawsuits against journalists with intimidating effect have been reported. 

The  Constitutional  Court  reported  an  increase  in  cases  related  to  COVID-19  pandemic 
measures.  The  law  on  public  finances  lacks  safeguards  on  budgetary  autonomy  of  certain 
independent  bodies  –  as  required  by  a  Constitutional  Court  judgment.  The  share  of  laws 
adopted by urgent procedure in Parliament has decreased. The Human Rights Ombudsperson 
received an increased number of complaints, including those related to COVID-19 pandemic 
measures. The civil society faced challenges regarding negative narrative, but funding issues 
and limitations on freedom of assembly were resolved. 

1 

 
 
 
RECOMMENDATIONS 

In addition to recalling the commitments made under the National Recovery and Resilience 
Plan relating to certain aspects of the justice system, it is recommended to Slovenia to:   

  Ensure 

that  rules  on  parliamentary 

inquiries  contain  adequate  safeguards  for 
independence of judges and state prosecutors, taking into account European standards on 
judicial independence.  

  Remove obstacles to the investigation and prosecution of corruption cases, including by 
ensuring the operational autonomy of the National Bureau of Investigation, increasing the 
resources of State Prosecution and revising the statute of limitation. 

  Adopt and start implementing without further delay the anti-corruption strategy. 
  Strengthen  the  rules  and  mechanisms  to  enhance  the  independent  governance  and 
editorial independence of public service media taking into account European standards on 
public service media. 

  Establish legislative and other safeguards to protect journalists, particularly online, taking 

into account European standards on the protection of journalists. 

  Ensure requisite safeguards for budgetary autonomy of the independent bodies. 

2 

 
 
I. 

JUSTICE SYSTEM  

The Slovenian justice system has three levels,  with  Local  and District  Courts (dealing with 
civil, commercial and criminal cases) and Labour Courts and an Administrative Court at first 
instance1,  five  Higher  Courts  at  second  instance  and  the  Supreme  Court  at  third  instance 
(dealing with appeals to certain judgments of Higher Courts and of the Administrative Court). 
The  Constitutional  Court  carries  out  constitutional  review.  The  Constitution  provides  for  a 
Judicial Council, a  sui generis  body outside of the three branches of Government,  which is 
tasked  with  protecting  the  independence  as  well  as  promoting  and  ensuring  the 
accountability, efficiency and quality of work of the judiciary2. Candidate judges are selected 
by  the  Judicial  Council  and  then  proposed  for  appointment  by  the  National  Assembly  (the 
first  chamber  of  Parliament)3.  If  the  Judicial  Council  selects  a  candidate  who  has  already 
been elected to judicial office, the candidate is promoted to the new judicial position by the 
Council  itself.  The  State  Prosecution,  while  being  part  of  the  executive  power,  is  an 
independent authority, with the main powers regarding the career of state prosecutors and its 
functioning  resting  with  the  State  Prosecutorial  Council  and  the  Prosecutor  General.  The 
State Prosecutorial  Council is  an independent  and autonomous state body  that performs the 
tasks of self-governance of the State Prosecution and participates in ensuring the uniformity 
of  prosecution  and  safeguarding  the  independence  and  autonomy  of  state  prosecutors. 
Slovenia  participates  in  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  (EPPO).  The  Slovene  Bar 
Association  is  an  autonomous  and  independent  body.  It  is  responsible  for  supervising  the 
professional  activities  of  lawyers  and  deciding  on  disciplinary  measures  regarding  its 
members4.  

Independence  

The level of perceived judicial independence in Slovenia continues to be average among 
both the general public and companies. Overall, 49% of the general population and 49% of 
companies perceive the level of independence of courts and judges to be ‘fairly or very good’ 
in 20225. According to data in the 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard, the level of perceived judicial 
independence shows a positive trend for the fourth year in a row. Both figures have increased 
in  comparison  to  2021  (47%  for  the  general  public  and  43%  for  companies),  as  well  as  in 
comparison to 2016 (47% for the general public and 37% for companies). 

1   There are in total 60 first instance courts with one Labour Court also dealing with social security cases. The 

Administrative Court has the status of a higher court. 

2   The  primary  responsibility  of  the  Judicial  Council  is  the  selection  of  candidate  for  judicial  offices.  As 
guaranteed by the Constitution, the majority of members of the Judicial Council are judges, elected by their 
peers.  The  remaining  five  members  are  representatives  of  other  legal  professions,  elected  by  the  National 
Assembly based on the nomination of the President of the Republic. The Judicial Council manages its own 
budget.  

3   Since  the  initial  re-election  of  judges  after  the  independence  of  Slovenia  in  1990s,  the  Parliament  has 
rejected a candidate judge for first appointment only once. It should be noted a candidate judge, who is not 
appointed, cannot request judicial review against the decision of the Parliament and the Parliament has no 
obligation to state reasons for rejecting the appointment. 

4   According to the  Constitution, the Bar is  part of the judiciary.  Disciplinary Commissions of 1st and of 2nd 
Instance,  each  consisting  of  16  lawyers  elected  for  3  years  by  the  assembly  of  the  Bar,  decide  (in  three-
member panels) regarding disciplinary  sanctions at  first instance and at second instance, respectively. The 
Disciplinary  Court,  consisting  of  three  lawyers  elected  for  2  years  by  the  assembly  of  the  Bar  and  of  two 
Supreme Court judges, decides on violations that could lead to a lawyer being disbarred. 

5   Figures 50 and 52, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The level of perceived judicial independence is categorised 
as  follows:  very  low  (below  30%  of  respondents  perceive  judicial  independence  as  fairly  good  and  very 
good); low (between 30-39%), average (between 40-59%), high (between 60-75%), very high (above 75%). 

3 

 
                                                 
The Ministry of Justice is preparing amendments to the Judicial Council Act, including 
regarding  disciplinary  framework  on  judges.  The  aim  of  the  draft  amendments  is  to 
introduce the possibility of a (semi) professionalisation of the function of the President and 
Vice-President of the Judicial Council6, clarify the provisions regarding judicial control over 
the  legality  of  the  election  of  members  of  the  Judicial  Council  from  among  judges,  further 
strengthen  the  transparency  and  accountability  of  the  Judicial  Council,  and  address  the 
unconstitutionality  of  the  certain  provisions  on  disciplinary  proceedings  regarding  judges. 
The 2021 Rule of Law Report found that the judiciary initiated a discussion on improving the 
framework  for  disciplinary  proceedings  regarding  judges7.  Both  the  Association  of  Judges 
and the Judicial Council provided comments on the draft amendments.  The objective of the 
reform of disciplinary proceedings appears to be in line with EU law and takes into account 
the Council of Europe recommendations8. 

The Government nominated  the European  Delegated  Prosecutors, and the subsequent 
Government appointed most of candidates for state prosecutors. The 2021 Rule of Law 
Report set out concerns about the failure of Slovenia to nominate the candidates for the post 
of  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  in  time9.  On  18  November  2021,  the  then  Government 
eventually  nominated  the  two  candidates  selected  in  December  2020  by  the  State 
Prosecutorial Council, which were then appointed on 23 November 2021 by  the College of 
the European Public Prosecutor’s Office. However, on 24 November 2021, the then Ministry 
of  Justice  submitted  for  discussion  by  the  Government  draft  amendments  to  the  State 
Prosecution  Service  Act  that  would  change  the  rules  for  the  nomination  of  the  European 
Delegated  Prosecutors  and  envisaged  that  the  two  already  appointed  European  Delegated 
Prosecutors  would  be  replaced  by  new  candidates  selected  in  accordance  with  this  revised 

6   The current Act on Judicial Council does not envisage that the Council President or Vice-President would be 

relieved of any duties (even partly), for example in the judicial function.  

7   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 5-6. 
8   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, paras. 66 and 
69.  According  to  EU  law,  the  requirement  of  independence  means  that  the  disciplinary  regime  regarding 
judges  must  display  the  necessary  guarantees  in  order  to  prevent  that  the  regime  is  used  as  a  system  of 
political control of the content of judicial decisions. E.g. Judgment of the Court of Justice of 24 June 2019, 
Commission  v.  Poland,  C-619/18,  EU:C:2019:531,  para.  77;  judgment  of  the  Court  of  Justice  of  25  July 
2018, LM, C-216/18 PPU, EU:C:2018:586; judgment of the Court of Justice of 5 July 2016,  Ognyanov, C-
614/14, EU:C:2016:514 and order of the Court of Justice of 12 February 2019, RH, C-8/19, EU:C:2019:110. 
9   According  to  the  State  Prosecution  Service  Act,  the  independent  State  Prosecutorial  Council,  following  a 
public vacancy published by the Ministry of Justice, selects candidates for the post of European Delegated 
Prosecutors  and  submits  them  to  the  Ministry,  which  then  submits  the  names  to  the  Government;  the 
Government “takes note” of the candidates selected by the Council, and transmits their names to the  EPPO, 
which  decides  on  their  appointment.  In  December  2020,  the  Council  submitted  the  names  of  the  two 
candidates  to  the  Minister,  but  the  Government  did  not  put  the  item  on  its  agenda.  In  May  2021,  the 
Government  declared  the  selection  procedure  unsuccessful  and  instructed  the  Minister  to  publish  a  new 
vacancy  (released  in  July).  (2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in 
Slovenia,  pp.  3-4).  In  the  new  call,  the  same  two  candidates,  whom  the  Council  already  proposed  for 
nomination,  applied.  However,  the  Council  considered  that  its  selection  remained  valid,  thereby  rendering 
the new public call illegal. (State Prosecutorial Council, Conclusions of 1 June 2021 and Statement of 9 July 
2021).  The  European  Chief  Prosecutor  sent  a  letter  to  the  Minister  of  Justice  highlighting  how  the 
Government  undermined  the  effective  work  of  the  EPPO.  (EPPO,  European  Chief  Prosecutor  expresses 
grave  concerns  in  letter  to  Slovenian  Minister  for  Justice,  9  July  2021).  The  European  Chief  Prosecutor 
informed the EU Justice Ministers that the persisting obstruction by Slovenia created “a prosecution gap in 
the EPPO zone”. (EPPO, Statement from the European Chief Prosecutor with regard to Slovenia, 8 October 
2021). 

4 

 
                                                 
procedure10.  The  Commission  pointed  out  that  the  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  were 
appointed for the five-year term of office provided for in Article 17 of the EPPO Regulation, 
with  all  the  guarantees  required  to  ensure  their  independence.  As  regards  the  state 
prosecutors, the 2021 Rule of  Law Report  found that the appointments  of state prosecutors 
were unjustifiably delayed11. On 2 June 2022, the new Government  appointed/promoted 13 
out of 20 candidate prosecutors who were awaiting a decision of the Government12.  

Rules  governing  parliamentary  inquiries  lack  safeguards  on  independence  of  judges 
and  state  prosecutors  that  were  required  by  two  Constitutional  Court  judgments.  In 
2019,  a  Parliamentary  Inquiry  Committee  opened  an  investigation  to  look  into  actions  of 
prosecutors  and  judges  in  specific  criminal  cases13.  Against  this  background,  the  Judicial 
Council  and  the  State  Prosecution  challenged  the  constitutionality  of  the  rules  on 
parliamentary inquiries then in force and the Constitutional Court delivered two judgments. 
In  January  2021,  the  Constitutional  Court  found  the  Parliamentary  Inquiries  Act  and  the 
Rules  of  Procedure  on  Parliamentary  Inquiry  to  be  unconstitutional,  insofar  as  they  lack 
procedural  safeguards  for  ensuring  the  independence  of  judges  when  establishing  a 
parliamentary inquiry14. In August 2021, the Constitutional Court found similar deficiencies 
in the rules in relation to safeguards for ensuring the independence of state prosecutors15. The 
Constitutional Court gave Parliament one year to remedy the unconstitutional elements from 

10   The amendments would restrict the role of the State Prosecutorial Council in the selection of candidates for 
the  post  of  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  and  enable  the  Government  to  make  a  selection  amongst  the 
proposed candidates. They would allow the Ministry of Justice to propose to the Government ‘other eligible 
candidates’  for  European  Delegated  Prosecutors  (even  if  they  never  applied  to  the  vacancy),  in  case  the 
Council  would  not  submit  its  proposal.  In  addition,  the  amendments  envisaged  that  the  list  of  candidates 
from  which  the  Government  would  get  to  choose  should  contain  three  times  the  number  of  European 
Delegated Prosecutors in relation to Slovenia. The then Government did not discuss the amendments, which 
stayed  with  the  Ministry  of  Justice  for  reconsideration.  Draft  amendments  were  not  submitted  into  inter-
ministerial consultation or into legislative procedure, and due to a change in Government the procedure on 
their discussion  was stopped. However, on 13 May 2022, the opposition deputies in the newly established 
Parliament  submitted  the  draft  amendments  to  the  State  Prosecution  Service  Act,  which  include  the  same 
provisions.  

11   The  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report  noted  that  the  Government  had  not  provided  clear  reasons  for  not  taking 
decisions  on  the  appointment/promotion  of  15  candidate  prosecutors,  out  of  29  proposed  by  the  State 
Prosecutorial Council from July 2020 until July 2021; see 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the 
rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 3. 

12   Out of 37 proposed since July 2020. To be noted that the previous Government did not provide any reasons 
for the  delay.  Out of these 13, 6 were appointments of  new state prosecutors and 7 promotions/transfer of 
existing state prosecutors. The procedures for the remaining 7 candidates will continue after the promotions 
of 2 June become final. Written contribution from the State Prosecutorial Council and the Ministry of Justice 
following the country visit to Slovenia.  

13   2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 2-3. 
14   The  Constitutional  Court  stressed  that  Parliament  may  not  impede  judicial  proceedings,  or  in  any  way 
influence  judges  in  concrete  proceedings,  including  through  an  ex  post  discussion  about  the  legality  or 
adequacy of individual judgments. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 7 January 2021, U-I-246/19-41, 
see 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 4-5. 

15   The  Constitutional  Court  stressed  that  the  Parliament  may  not  impede  prosecutorial  work,  or  in  any  way 
influence prosecutors in concrete cases, including through an ex post discussion about the responsibility of a 
state  prosecutor  for  deciding  to  prosecute  or  not  to  prosecute  in  a  specific  case.  Judgment  of  the 
Constitutional Court of 8 July 2021, U-I-214/19, paras. 79-82.  

5 

 
                                                 
the Parliamentary Inquiries Act (until January 2022 and July 2022 with regard to judgments 
on judges and state prosecutors, respectively)16. No legislative proposal has been tabled yet. 

Concerns have been raised over the Minister of Interior’s powers to instruct the Police 
in individual cases, potentially affecting independent work of state prosecutors and the 
EPPO.  On  20  October  2021,  the  Parliament  adopted,  on  a  proposal  from  the  Government, 
amendments to the Organisation and Work of the Police Act. Further to these amendments17, 
the Minister of the  Interior  has the power  to issue instructions to  the Police even when the 
latter act in the framework of a criminal investigation, until the moment the state prosecutors 
demand  in  writing  to  take  the  lead  of  the  investigations  or  issue  written  guidance  to  the 
police.  These  provisions  may  also  apply  to  the  relations  between  the  Slovenian  European 
Delegated  Prosecutors  and  the  Police.  Previously,  it  was  deemed  that  the  state  prosecutors 
were in charge of the investigation by default, from the moment the Police informed them of 
the criminal offence, and Minister/Police hierarchy could not intervene18. On 23 June 2022, 
the new Government amended the Decree and removed the obligation to demand in writing 
to  take  the  lead  of  the  investigations  and  the  obligation  to  issue  guidance  to  the  Police  in 
writing. 

Quality  

Electronic  communication  tools  in  the  justice  system  are  being  gradually  improved, 
including  in  criminal  justice,  where  room  for  improvement  remains.  Information  and 
Communication  Technologies  for  case  management  are  advanced,  particularly  in  courts.  In 
2021,  as  part  of  an  EU  funded  project,  the  Supreme  Court  launched  the  Archeia  system, 
which  enables  a  centralised,  long-term  storage  of  digital  content19.  The  2021  Rule  of  Law 
Report  found  that  the  COVID-19  pandemic  exposed  the  need  to  accelerate  the  necessary 
improvements  to  electronic  communication  tools  between  courts/prosecution  and  parties20. 
According  to  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  in  2021  the  digitalisation  improved, 
particularly  regarding  procedural  rules  enabling  the  use  of  electronic  communication  in 
civil/commercial  cases  and  in  internal  electronic  communication  of  State  Prosecution21. 

16   Until  the  established  unconstitutionality  is  removed,  the  Judicial  Council  or  the  Prosecutor  General  can 
request the Constitutional Court to check if a new parliamentary inquiry respects independence of judges or 
state prosecutors, respectively. 

17   Article 4(8) of that Act, read in combination with Articles 5(2) and 12(4) of the Decree on the cooperation of 
the state prosecutorial service, Police and other competent state bodies and institutions in the detection and 
prosecution of perpetrators of criminal offences and operation of specialised and joint investigation teams. In 
April 2022, a group of 5 000 citizens submitted into legislative procedure a draft ‘Act to reduce inequalities 
and harmful policy interventions and ensure respect for the rule of law’ that would amend a number of laws, 
among them the Police Act, including on the Minister’s power to issue instructions. 

18   It  should  be  noted  that  once  the  EPPO  has  decided  to  exercise  its  competence,  the  national  authorities  on 
which the EPPO relies for the adoption and execution of investigative measures, notably the Police, should 
not  receive  instructions  from  any  national  authority.  The  Commission  has  enquired  with  the  Slovenian 
authorities in order to gather further information and examine the amendments from its compliance with EU 
law, including the EPPO Regulation. 

19   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 
20   2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, pp. 6-7. As a response to 
the COVID-19 pandemic, the Supreme Court promoted and implemented (in collaboration with the Ministry 
of  Public  Administration)  tele-working  and  enabled  work  from  home  for  about  3.000  (some  75%)  court 
employees.  In  addition,  necessary  IT  equipment  (notebooks,  desktops)  was  provided  to  judges  and  court 
personnel. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 

21   Figures 42 and 43, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. State Prosecution improved conditions for remote work of 

state prosecutors and staff and use of videoconferencing, in particular. 

6 

 
                                                 
Room  for  improvement  remains  on  electronic  communication  in  criminal  cases22  and  for 
communication  of  external  actors  with  the  State  Prosecution23.  In  criminal,  administrative 
and civil and commercial cases, accelerated efforts are under way to upgrade already by end 
2022  the  computerised  case  management  system  to  allow  electronic  communication24.  In 
2021, the Ministry of Justice established a working group to coordinate the implementation of 
electronic operations in criminal matters25. Several necessary adjustments in communication 
between the Police, the State Prosecution and courts have been identified, and the court rules 
have  been  amended.  A  number  of  projects  to  upgrade  the  electronic  communication  tools 
have  commenced,  particular  in  the  criminal  area26.  As  regards  electronic  communication 
between  the  Police  and  the  State  Prosecution,  the  channel  for  criminal  notifications  which 
exists  since  2017  saw  its  features  extended  in  2021.  As  regards  electronic  communication 
between  courts  and  State  Prosecution,  it  is  planned  to  be  extended  to  all  types  of  criminal 
cases  by  end  of  2023.  Online  access  to  published  judgments  remains  limited  as  regards 
decisions of first instance courts27. Amendments requiring the Supreme Court to publish also 
first instance court judgments are in preparation28.  

The Government decreased the previously agreed budget for courts, State Prosecution 
and  Judicial  Council  without  the  customary  consultation  with  judicial  authorities. 
According  to  a  well-established  practice,  the  Ministry  of  Finance  (in  cooperation  with  the 
Ministry of Justice) prepares the draft budget for the justice system based on input from and 
in  consultation  with  the  judiciary,  and  the  Government  submits  the  agreed  proposal  to 
Parliament in full transparency. In November 2020, Parliament adopted the 2022 budget29. In 
June 2021, some judicial authorities30 agreed with the Ministries of Finance and Justice on a 
higher budget, in view of preparations of amendments to the 2022 budget31. However, on 30 
September  2021,  the  Government  proposed  to  Parliament  the  Amendments  to  the  2022 
budget32, which reduced the previously agreed revisions by 17% for the Judicial Council, 4% 
for the State Prosecution and 1.2% for the courts. The judicial authorities were not informed 

22   Figures 46 and 47, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
23   Figure 45, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. Electronic communication between courts and State Prosecution is 
planned to be introduced by the end of 2022. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 

24   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 12. 
25   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 10-11. 
26   For  example:  establishment  of  electronic  business  processes  in  criminal  case  management  system; 
development of the e-File information system; and upgrading the e-Notaries information system. Completion 
is planned in 2023. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 9 and 11.  

27   Figure 48, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. The Supreme Court publishes court decisions in a machine-readable 
form.  Published  court  decisions  should  be  pseudonymised  by  deleting  a  number  of  personal  data.  Every 
individual  has  the  right  to  request  from  the  President  of  the  Supreme  Court  or  from  the  Supreme  judge 
authorised by him the deletion or correction of the publication of a court decision. Input from Slovenia for 
the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 12-13. 

28   Due  to  the  Supreme  Court’s  concerns  about  the  reasonableness  of  non-selective  publication  of  all  first 
instance  judgments,  the  Ministry  of  Justice  proposed  criteria,  focussing  on  publication  of  those  final 
judgments  of  the  first  instance  courts  which  are  important  for  strengthening  legal  certainty  and  ensuring 
consistent case law, and which have decided on the main proceedings, except for those in which the public 
has  been  excluded  from  court  proceedings  or  if  the  adjudicating  judge  or  the  panel  so  decides  for  certain 
reasons. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 12-13. 

29   Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022, Official Journal of 27 November 2020, 174/2020. 
30   Such as the Judicial Council, the State Prosecution and the Supreme Court (acting on behalf of the courts). 
31   The  Government  adopted  these  agreed  amounts  in  the  Proposal  to  determine  the  breakdown  of  budgetary 

expenditure adopted in the Government session of 24 June 2021.  

32   Parliament  adopted  this  budget  on  18  November  2021.  Amendments  to  the  Budget  of  the  Republic  of 

Slovenia for 2022, Official Journal of 1 December 2021, 187/2021. 

7 

 
                                                 
of the revised proposed budget nor invited to parliamentary discussions on it, contrary to the 
established  practice33.  The  European  Parliament  called  on  Slovenian  Government  to  ensure 
sufficient funding for the judicial authorities.34 Council of Europe recommendations provide 
that Councils for the Judiciary, the courts themselves and/or judges’ professional organisation 
may be consulted when the judicial system’s budget is being prepared35. It is to be noted that 
the overall budget for the justice system has been increasing for several years36. 

The  Judicial  Council  launched  a  procedure  for  constitutional  review  of  salaries  of 
judges. In 2021, the Constitutional Court was seized first by the Association of Judges37 and 
subsequently by the Judicial Council38 in relation to the salaries of judges. In particular, the 
Judicial  Council  and  the  Association  of  Judges  consider  that  the  current  salary  system 
applicable  to  judges  is  unconstitutional  due  to  the  imbalance  of  the  salary  grades  of  the 
judiciary  compared to the salary  grades of the legislative  and the  executive branches.  They 
also  stated  the  imbalance  is  affecting  the  independence  of  the  judiciary  guaranteed  by  the 
Constitution.  According  to  the  Judges’  Association,  the  current  salary  system  makes  it 
difficult  to  attract  and  retain  judges  in  the  judiciary39.  The  imbalance  between  the  public 
sector  salary  system  and  the  salary  system  applicable  to  judges  leads  to  situations  where 
officials working in courts (judicial advisers) sometimes have a higher salary than a judge40. 

Efficiency 

There  were  some  improvements  in  efficiency,  but  the  challenges  identified  in  past 
Reports persist on length of trials related to money laundering offences. According to the 

33   Judicial authorities raised concerns about a ‘significant cut’ of  the  previously agreed budget and asked for 
explanations. Letter from the President of the Judicial Council to Commissioner Reynders, Resources for the 
Judicial Council and Judiciary of the Republic of Slovenia - 2022 Budget Amendments, 17 November 2021. 
Supreme  Court,  Opening of the judicial  year 2022, 2 March 2022, p. 3-4. For courts, the budget  for 2022 
was  decreased  by  EUR  2.4  million,  and  for  State  Prosecution  by  EUR  1.1  million.  Information  received 
from the State Prosecution in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

34   ‘[European Parliament] calls on Slovenian Government to ensure sufficient funding for the Judicial Council 
and  State  Prosecutorial  Council,  Constitutional  Court  and  Supreme  Court  and  to  respect  their  financial 
autonomy so that these self-governance bodies and independent institutions can function independently and 
effectively’. European Parliament resolution of 16 December 2021 on fundamental rights and the rule of law 
in Slovenia, in particular the delayed nomination of EPPO prosecutors (2021/2978(RSP)), para. 17. 
35   Recommendation CM/Rec(2010)12 of the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe, para. 40. 
36   Figures  34  and  35  in  the  2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard  show  that  the  budget  actually  spent  for  the  justice 
system has been growing since 2016 in absolute terms, while in relative terms, as share of GDP, it has grown 
in 2020, from a previously stable level, and remains among the highest in the EU. 

37   In  March  2021,  the  Judges'  Association  submitted  an  initiative  to  the  Constitutional  Court  to  review  the 
constitutionality  of  several  provisions  of  the  Public  Sector Salary  System  Act,  Fiscal  Balance  Act  and  the 
Judicial  Service  Act.  The  Association  considered  that  the  existing  legal  framework  on  salaries  and  other 
remuneration  is  contrary  to  the  constitutional  provisions  ensuring  the  rule  of  law,  the  principle  of  the 
separation of powers and the equivalence of the three branches of power, equality, the right to justice and the 
independence  of  the  judiciary.  Judges’  Association,  Press  release  of  19  March  2021.  The  Constitutional 
Court  rejected  the  initiative  due  to  lack  of  legal  interest.  Decision  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  21  April 
2022, U-I-70/21-8.  

38   The Judicial Council lodged a request for the review of constitutionality on 6 October 2021 alleging a breach 
of the same provisions of the Constitution as those quoted by Judges’ Association. Written contribution from 
the  Judicial Council following the country visit to Slovenia. The Constitutional  Court decided to treat this 
request as an absolute priority. 

39   Information received from the Judges’ Association in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 
40   Information  received  from  the  Judicial  Council  and  the  Judges’  Association  in  the  context  of  the  country 

visit to Slovenia. 

8 

 
                                                 
2022  EU  Justice  Scoreboard,  the  estimated  time  needed  to  resolve  has  increased  in  2020, 
particularly  in  litigious  civil  and  commercial  cases41.  According  to  Supreme  Court  data,  in 
2021, the courts in total received 8% more cases and resolved 10% more cases than in 2020, 
with the total backlog of cases at the end of 2021 decreasing by 8%42. In 2021, the average 
length of proceedings mostly increased or stagnated at first instance courts, and decreased at 
second instance courts.43 As regards criminal courts, the number of cases in which the statute 
of  limitation  was  reached  has  more  than  halved  from  2019  to  202044.  Nevertheless,  the 
average length of trials in first instance courts  in more complex money laundering offences 
increased to 925 days in 2020 on average (876 days in 2019) and remains among the highest 
in the EU45. The President of the Supreme Court established a working group consisting of 
Supreme Court and appeal  court judges with  the task of analysing the challenges regarding 
adjudication of cases, including on financial and economic crime, particularly those related to 
efficiency46.  

II. 

ANTI-CORRUPTION FRAMEWORK  

The  key  law  setting  up  the  institutional  and  legislative  framework  to  prevent  and  fight 
corruption  in  Slovenia  is  the  Integrity  and  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act  (IPCA).  The 
Commission for the Prevention of Corruption is an autonomous and independent state body, 
responsible  for  the  prevention  of  corruption  through  administrative  oversight  of  rules  on 
integrity and conflicts of interests. The Commission continues to cooperate regularly with the 
police and special prosecutor’s office. The National Bureau of Investigation is the specialised 
criminal  investigation  unit  for  the  detection  and  investigation  of  serious  crimes,  including 
corruption.  Previously  an  autonomous  body,  it  was  moved  in  2021  under  the  management 
authority of the General Police Directorate. 

The  perception  of  public  sector  corruption  among  experts  and  business  executives  is 
that the level of corruption in the public sector is relatively high47. In the 2021 Corruption 
Perceptions  Index  by  Transparency  International,  Slovenia  scores  57/100  and  ranks  16th  in 
the EU and 41th globally48. This perception has been relatively stable49 over the past 5 years50. 

41   Figures 6 and 7, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
42   Written contribution from the Supreme Court following the country visit to Slovenia. 
43   The  average  length  of  proceedings  at  first  instance  courts  increased  to  around  2  years  in  large  value  (21 
months in 2020) and to 16 months in small value litigious civil cases (15 months in 2020). and stagnated at 
11  months  in  litigious  commercial  cases.  In  criminal  cases,  the  average  length  increase  both  in  lesser 
offences (10,7 months, from 10 months in 2020) and in more serious offences (17 months, from 15 months 
in  2020).  In  appeal,  due  to  mostly  written  procedures,  these  types  of  cases  were  resolved  more  quickly, 
namely in around 1,8 months in civil (2,4 in 2020) and in 2,7 months in commercial cases (3,4 in 2020), on 
average. Written contribution from the Supreme Court following the country visit to Slovenia. 

44   In  2020,  55  criminal  cases  were  closed  due  to  the  statute  of  limitation  being  reached  (in  2019,  144  cases 
were closed for the same reason). In about two thirds of closed cases, the statute of limitation was reached 
due to procedural reasons, such as the unavailability of the indicted person or the need to postpone hearings. 
Other reasons included organisational or legal reasons, as well as indictments having been lodged too late. 
Supreme Court Report on cases with statutes of limitation in 2020 , pp. 1-3. 

45   Figure 24, 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 
46   Information received from the Supreme Court in the context of the country visit to Slovenia.  
47   Slovenia went from score 60 (at the bottom of the category relatively low, see below) to score 59 (at the top 
of the category relatively high). Taking into account also the percentage of 84% who believe corruption in 
the government is a big problem, the qualification is ‘relatively high’.  

48   Transparency  International,  Corruption  Perceptions  Index  2020  (2021),  pp.  2-3.  The  level  of  perceived 
corruption  is  categorised  as  follows:  low  (the  perception  among  experts  and  business  executives  of  public 

9 

 
                                                 
 
The  2022  Special  Eurobarometer  on  Corruption  shows  that  87%  of  respondents  consider 
corruption  widespread  in  their  country  (EU  average  68%)  and  31%  of  respondents  feel 
personally  affected  by  corruption  in  their  daily  lives  (EU  average  24%)51.  As  regards 
businesses, 78% of companies consider that corruption is widespread (EU average 63%) and 
34%  consider  that  that  corruption  is  a  problem  when  doing  business  (EU  average  34%)52. 
Furthermore, 36% of respondents find that there are enough successful prosecutions to deter 
people  from  corrupt  practices  (EU  average  34%)53,  while  17%  of  companies  believe  that 
people  and  businesses  caught  for  bribing  a  senior  official  are  appropriately  punished  (EU 
average 29%)54.  

There  is  currently  no  national  anti-corruption  strategy  in  place.  A  Resolution  on  the 
Prevention of Corruption in the Republic of Slovenia was adopted in 2004, which has since 
not been changed55. The previous national anti-corruption strategy covered the period 2017-
2019.  Since  then,  no  new  strategy  has  been  put  in  place.  A  working  group,  composed  of 
representatives  of  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration,  the  Ministry  of  Justice,  the 
Commission for the Prevention of Corruption and other stakeholders, has been established to 
prepare  a  new  anti-corruption  strategy  by  March  2023.  No  concrete  timeline  regarding  its 
adoption has yet been announced56.  

The heads of key institutions have voiced their concern about continuous challenges to 
the independence of institutions in the fight against corruption.  In June 2021, the heads 
of  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  the  Court  of  Audit,  the  Information 
Commissioner  and  the  Human  Rights  Ombudsman  issued  a  joint  statement  denouncing 
repeated  pressure  and  harassment  from  politicians  through  coordinated  attacks  in  media 
outlets  and  on  social  media.  The  public  criticism  includes  the  blanket  rejection  or  non-
compliance  with  decisions,  as  well  as  the  accusation  of  political  action,  which  undermines 
respect  for  the  institutions  responsible  to  fight  corruption57.  This  undue  interference  in  the 
work  of  the  institutions  is  likely  to  have  a  detrimental  impact  on  their  overall  capacity  to 
perform their key tasks in the prevention and detection of corruption and other irregularities, 

sector  corruption scores  above  79);  relatively  low  (scores  between  79-60),  relatively  high  (scores  between 
59-50), high (scores below 50).  

49   In 2017, the score was 61. The score significantly increases/decreases when it changes more than five points; 
improves/deteriorates (changes between 4-5 points); is relatively stable (changes from 1-3 points) in the last 
5 years. 

50   The Eurobarometer data on corruption perception and experience of citizens and businesses as reported last 
year is updated every second year. The latest data set is the Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022) and the Flash 
Eurobarometer 507 (2022). 

51   Special  Eurobarometer  523  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  citizens’  corruption  perception  and 
experience is updated every second year. The previous data set is the Special Eurobarometer 502 (2020). 
52   Flash  Eurobarometer  507  (2022).  The  Eurobarometer  data  on  business  attitudes  towards  corruption  as  is 

updated every second year. The previous data set is the Flash Eurobarometer 482 (2019). 

53   Special Eurobarometer 523 (2022). 
54   Flash Eurobarometer 507 (2022). 
55   Written  contribution  from  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  following  the  country  visit  to  Slovenia. 
According to the Ministry of Public Administration, the Resolution is the national umbrella document which 
sets  the  policies  and  acts  as  the  foundation  for  the  adoption  of  programmes  regarding  the  prevention  of 
corruption based on the assessment of the current state of affairs. 

56   Input  from  Slovenia  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  15.  Information  received  from  the  Ministry  of 

Justice in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

57   Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  the  Court  of  Audit,  the  Information  Commissioner  and  the 
Human Rights Ombudsman, joined statement of the four autonomous  and independent state authorities, 11 
June 2021. See also Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, 2021 Report, 26 May 2022, section 3. 

10 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
as well as on the rule of law in general. In April 2022, the Commission for the Prevention of 
Corruption issued a similar declaration, in response to allegations made by representatives of 
the  previous  Government  that  the  Commission  had  taken  political  decisions58.  In  the  same 
month, the Supreme State Prosecution rejected in a public statement  allegations  from  some 
politicians that the State Prosecution had not taken action in relation to criminal threats to the 
former Prime Minister59.  

Serious  concerns  exist  regarding  the  independence  of  the  specialised  anti-corruption 
police  –  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation.  The  National  Bureau  of  Investigation  is 
responsible  to  fight  serious  crime,  including  corruption.  The  Bureau  enjoyed  an  absolute 
autonomy, both regarding investigations and management decisions. However, amendments 
adopted  in  October  2021  explicitly  limit  its  autonomy  to  ‘detection  and  investigation  of 
criminal  offences’60  and  removed  the  autonomy  of  the  Bureau’s  Director  to  decide  which 
investigations, including on corruption, the Bureau will take over61. The subordination of the 
Bureau within the General Police Directorate placed it under the responsibility of the Director 
of the General Police who has the final say on its internal acts, management and resources62. 
Moreover,  the  Minister  of  the  Interior  is  now  competent  to  prescribe  requirements  for 
executive positions (including the Director of the Bureau) and on this basis, in November, the 
new Director was appointed63. The OECD noted ongoing allegations of political interference 
in  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation  in  the  context  of  its  assessment  of  Slovenia’s 
enforcement  of  its  foreign  bribery  laws64.  The  new  Government  announced  amendments  to 
the Organisation and Work of the Police Act.  

Criminal  investigations  and  indictments  on  alleged  corruption  have  dropped  to  their 
lowest level in recent years. In 2021, the number of criminal reports from the Police to the 

58   Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption,  Press  release  of  19  April  2022,  Reply  to  untrue  and 

misleading statements in pre-election debates. 

59   Supreme  State  Prosecution,  Press  release  of  14  April  2022,  Data  of  the  Supreme  State  Prosecution  on 
prosecution activities for Article 135 of the Criminal Code in matters where the victim is the Prime Minister. 
60   In October 2021, the Parliament adopted the amendments  to the Organisation and Work of the Police Act 
that  removed  the  management  and  organisational  autonomy  of  the  National  Bureau  of  Investigation.  The 
amendment to  Article  21 of the Organisation and Work of the Police  Act changed the second sentence of 
second paragraph from ‘In fulfilling its tasks [the Bureau] is autonomous.’ into ‘[The Bureau] is autonomous 
in detection and investigation of criminal offences’. Furthermore, the amendments allowed the Minister in a 
few months to completely change the executive positions in the Police. In November 2021, the Ministry of 
the Interior notified 126 Police station chiefs and directors of Police of their dismissals. In December 2021, 
the Constitutional Court suspended the application of some of the amendments, namely those relating to the 
selection  and  dismissal  of  police  posts.  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  23  December  2021,  U-I-
823/21. In April 2022, a group of 5 000 citizens submitted into legislative procedure a draft ‘Act to reduce 
inequalities and harmful  political interventions and ensure respect for the  rule of law’ that  would amend a 
number of laws, among them  the  Organisation and Work  of the Police  Act, including  on the status of the 
Bureau and the appointment and dismissal of the Bureau’s Director. 

61   Amended Article 22. Additionally, the special provisions on the appointment of the Bureau’s Director have 
been removed and the appointment process to this position was made equivalent to any other senior position 
in public administration (deleted Article 49 and new Articles 49.a and 49.b). 

62   Explanatory memorandum to the Draft amendments to the Organisation and Work of the Police Act stated 
that the autonomy of the Bureau is ‘not absolute’ and that the department and its Director are ‘subordinate to 
the  Director  of  Criminal  Police  Directorate’,  and  information  received  from  the  National  Bureau  of 
Investigation in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

63   The Director of the NBI stated in an interview in May 2022 that during her time in charge of the Bureau, she 

did not experience direct political pressure. 

64   OECD,  Working  Group  on  Bribery,  Implementing  the  OECD  Anti-Bribery  Convention  Phase  4  Report: 

Slovenia, 11 March 2021, pp. 7 and 41-44. 

11 

 
                                                 
State  Prosecution  regarding  alleged  corruption  offences  decreased  (178  cases  in  2021, 
compared  to  298  in  2020,  and  185  in  2019)65.  Reasons  behind  the  fluctuations  of  alleged 
crimes are complex. Corruption goes unnoticed when the Police is unable to detect it and the 
general  public  is  reluctant  to  report  it,  for  example  because  it  lacks  confidence  that 
complaints  will  be  effectively  followed  up.  The  number  of  indictments  brought  by  state 
prosecutors  also  decreased  to  the  lowest  level  in  recent  years  (21  indictments  in  2021, 
compared to 23 in 2020 and 123 in 2019)66. The data on all corruption offences show that the 
number of first instance court judgments increased in 2021 (48, compared to 29 in 2020 and 
28  in  2019)67.  In  line  with  these  numbers,  the  number  of  open  corruption  cases  in  courts 
decreased  to  170  (See  199  cases  in  2020  and  255  in  2019)68.  None  of  the  judgments  on 
corruption delivered in 2021 involved cases of high-level corruption69.  

The State Prosecution is facing challenges, including on human resources and due to the 
statute  of  limitation.  The  Specialised  State  Prosecutor’s  Office  is  competent  to  prosecute 
criminal offences related to corruption in the public and private sector and functioned, at the 
end of 2021, with 11 (out of 16 planned) state prosecutors70. In total, the prosecution service 
operated  at  the  end  of  2021  with  only  203  (out  of  the  268  planned)  state  prosecutors71. 
Reportedly,  the  actual  available  staff  fluctuates  between  154  and  180  prosecutors  due  to  a 
high  level  of  absences72  and  the  lack  of  state  prosecutors,  according  to  the  Supreme  State 
Prosecution,  leads  to  delays,  lower  quality  of  work  and  cases  of  burnout,  which  may 
exacerbate  in  future  due  to  an  upcoming  retirement  wave73.  In  addition,  the  statute  of 
limitation presents an additional challenge for the prosecution of corruption, according to the 
Government74  and  the  State  Prosecution75.  In  November  2021,  opposition  members  of  the 
Parliament  submitted  draft  amendments  to  the  Criminal  Code,  aimed  at  limiting  the  time 
available to start a criminal investigation and to conduct the investigation itself. According to 
the European Chief Prosecutor, the amendments would have considerably shortened the time 
span  available  for  the  detection,  prosecution  and  trials  related  to  criminal  offences  falling 

65   The number of investigations for eight corruption offences under the Criminal Code was: 119 (in 2011), 52 
(in 2012), 41 (in 2013), 67 (in 2014), 96 (in 2015), 199 (in 2016), 81 (in 2017), 108 (in 2018), 185 (in 2019), 
298 (in 2020) and 178 (in 2021). Slovenian Police, 2021 Report, p. 100. Supreme State Prosecution reported 
that  the  Specialised  State  Prosecutor's  Office  received  a  total  of  368  criminal  notifications  from  various 
sources for crimes regarded as corruption offences in 2021, compared to 121 received in 2020 and 222 for 
such crimes in 2019. 

66   Annex  to  the  Input  from  Slovenia  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report.  The  Supreme  State  Prosecution 
mentions 20 indictments for 2021, with 125 for 2020. Supreme State Prosecution, 2021 Report, p. 138. 

67   Annex to the Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  The State Prosecution service reported 
that  the  courts  handed  down  27  convictions  for  27  offences,  more  than  in  2020  and  2019,  when  21 
convictions were handed down. They also issued 27 acquittals, more than the previous 2 reporting years (7 
in 2020 and 9 in 2019). Supreme State Prosecution, 2021 Report, p. 138. 

68   Supreme State Prosecution, 2021 Report, p. 138. 
69   Written contribution from the Specialised State Prosecution Office following the country visit to Slovenia. In 

2020, there was one such judgment, involving a mayor, and there were none in 2019. 

70   Supreme  State  Prosecution,  2021  Report,  p.  10;  According  to  the  Specialised  State  Prosecution  Service, 

Report 2021, p. 12, it operates with another 12 prosecutors that are seconded temporarily.  

71   Supreme  State  Prosecution,  2021  Report,  pp.  7-8.  Whereas  the  total  number  of  prosecutors  under  the 
Ministerial  Decree  is  268,  there  are  only  funds  for  236.  On  2  June  2022,  6  new  state  prosecutors  were 
appointed. 

72   Information received from the Specialised State Prosecutor’s Office in the context of the country visit. 
73   Supreme  State  Prosecution,  2021  Report,  p.  8-9.  Similar  concerns  are  raised  by  the  Specialised  State 

Prosecution Service, Report 2021, p. 12. 

74   Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 24.  
75   The  statute  of  limitation  is  an  issue,  according  to  State  Prosecution,  especially  in  corruption  offences 

committed in the health sector. Supreme State Prosecution, 2021 Report, p. 139. 

12 

 
                                                 
within  the  competence  of  the  European  Public  Prosecutor’s  Office  and  would  compromise 
ongoing  investigations76.  By  contrast,  there  have  also  been  developments  that  allow  the 
judiciary more time to bring their case to a final decision77.  

The resources of the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption are being increased. 
In  October  2021,  new  Rules  of  Procedure  for  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of 
Corruption entered into force, providing clarity on the rights of individuals in the context of 
procedures  before  the  Commission.78.  In  2021,  the  Commission  received  a  bit  less 
notifications  (629)  of  corruption  and  violations  of  integrity  than  in  2020  (728).  It  resolved 
646  notifications  (compared  to  785  in  2020)79.  The  budget  of  the  Commission  has  been 
increased substantially each year since 2019, and reached EUR 2.3 million for 202280. As of 
December 2021, there were 41 officials working in the Commission81 and procedures to hire 
10  additional  employees  in  2022  are  ongoing82.  However,  the  Commission  lacks  sufficient 
resources to upgrade its IT infrastructure (currently outsourced), including to develop and run 
the  planned  asset  declaration  platform  (as  well  as  for  integrity  and  whistleblower 
procedures)83. Nearly 20 000 officials have to declare their assets before taking up duties, and 
the Commission only has the capacity to check a random selection of declarations84.  

The rules on conflict of interest and ethics are being implemented, but incompatibilities 
sometimes  remain  unresolved.  The  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  can 
initiate  a  procedure  if  it  considers  that  an  activity  is  incompatible  with  a  person’s  current 
public office.  It was involved in several high-profile cases in 202185, the majority of which 

76   According to the European  Chief Prosecutor,  would the  amendments be adopted as proposed, for the  vast 
majority  of  offences  under  the  competence  of  the  EPPO,  prosecutors  would  have  drastically  less  time  to 
investigate, and thus would be unable to do it properly in all cases, while many ongoing cases would need to 
be closed immediately and definitively. The European Chief Prosecutor also stated that in practice, under the 
current  criminal  procedural  framework,  this  would  represent  a  de  facto  amnesty  for  many  cases  of  fraud 
against the EU budget in Slovenia. The European Chief Prosecutor also noted with utmost concern that such 
an  amendment  would  negatively  affect  investigations  and  prosecutions  initiated  in  other  Member  States 
participating in the EPPO, under which assisting measures would need to be performed in Slovenia. EPPO, 
Press  release:  Slovenia’s  Prosecutor  General  visits  the  EPPO  in  Luxembourg,  27  January  2022.  The 
amendments  became  obsolete  following  the  inauguration  of  the  new  parliamentary  term  on  13  May  2022 
after the general elections. It is not known whether there are plans to revive them. 

77  Since 15 December 2021, the statute of limitations for corruption offences was extended from 2 to 5 years in 
cases where a final judgment is reversed in proceedings with an extraordinary legal remedy, see Input from 
Slovenia  for  the  2022  Rule  of  Law  Report,  p.  19-20.  Under  the  Criminal  Procedure  Act,  evidence  as  the 
result of covert investigative measures has to be destroyed if the prosecution is not initiated within  2 years. 
The Constitutional Court in June 2021 ruled that a literal interpretation of that provision is inconsistent with 
the Constitution and held that the two-year period should be understood as merely instructive. Judgment of 
the Constitutional Court of 3 June 2021, U-I-462/18-45. 
78   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
79   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 2022, section 3. 
80   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
81   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14. 
82   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 14; Information received from the Commission for 

the Prevention of Corruption in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

83   As also noted in the 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on Slovenia, p. 13,  asset declarations are 

still not publicly available. 

84   By  the  end  of  2021,  19  893  officials  who  filed  the  declarations,  and  in  2021  altogether  11  952  various 
submissions were received, see Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 
2022, section 3.  

85   For  example,  on  12  May  2021,  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  finalised  the  procedure 
regarding  paid  external  activities  by  the  President  of  the  Court  of  Audit  for  the  FIFA,  which  five  times 
exceeded his financial gain from holding office. The Commission for the Prevention of Corruption ruled that 

13 

 
                                                 
 
related to local officials. The Commission issued more recommendations (62) in 2021, than 
in  2020  (40)  on  issues  such  as  incompatibility  of  functions  and  conflicts  of  interests. 
However, in most cases the addressees fail to take concrete measures that would best ensure 
proper  management  of  corruption  risks86.  In  May  2022,  the  Commission  adopted  new 
guidelines, with practical examples to facilitate the understanding of the legal provisions on 
conflict of interests. On the side of Parliament, the Council of the President of the Parliament 
is  responsible  to  monitor  the  implementation  of  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  members  of 
Parliament87  and,  in  case  of  misconduct,  may  issue  sanctions88.  In  2021,  three  proposals  of 
alleged breach of the Code of Ethics89 were submitted (one by the President and the other two 
by  the  Vice-President  of  the  Parliament).  They  were  discussed  in  closed  meeting  of  the 
Council of the President90. One sanction was approved by the Council of the President91. 

Officials  and  public  employees  must  report  contacts  with  lobbyists,  either  to  their 
employer or the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption. The obligation to report 
contacts  with  lobbyists  applies  to  officials  at  both  national  and  local  level.  In  2021,  the 
Commission  received  4  526  reports92  about  lobbying  contacts  (5  345  in  2020)93.  These 
contacts are published on a webpage94, and the Commission also publishes  on its website a 
register of professional lobbyists. Whereas legal and authorised representatives of companies 
or interest groups are exempt from registering as lobbyists, they have to report their lobbying 
activities to the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption95. In 2021, the Commission for 

the side earnings of the Court of Audit President did not constitute profitable activity on his behalf nor was 
there any conflict of interest. In April 2022, the Commission found that, in voting on the appointment of the 
non-executive  director  of  the  DUTB's  Board  of  Directors,  the  former  Prime  Minister  found  himself  in  a 
conflict  of  interest  and  acted  in  contravention  of  the  law.  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption, 
Press release: Final findings about a conflict of interest of the Prime Minister, 4 April 2022. 

86   Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 2022, section 2. At the occasion 
of the inaugural meeting of the newly elected Parliament on Friday, 13 May 2022, the Commission for the 
Prevention of Corruption called to respect the provisions on the incompatibility of the functions of the newly 
elected Members. Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Press release: Commission calls the newly 
elected members of Parliament to respect the conflict of interest provisions, 11 May 2022. 

87   Pursuant  to  Article  24  of  the  Rules  of  Procedure  of  the  Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  President  of  the 
National  Assembly  adopted,  at  its  71st  meeting  of  12  June  2020,  the  Code  of  Ethics  for  Deputies  of  the 
National Assembly of the Republic of Slovenia. 

88   Namely,  in  the  event  of  a  minor  violation,  a  reprimand  shall  be  imposed  on  the  deputy  without  public 
announcement; in the event of a serious violation, a reprimand shall be imposed on the deputy with public 
announcement  on  the  website  of  the  National  Assembly;  in  the  event  of  a  repeated  serious  violation,  a 
reprimand  shall  be  imposed  on  the  deputy  with  public  announcement  on  the  website  of  the  National 
Assembly and a declaration of the violation at the next session of the National Assembly. 

89  Available here: https://www.dz-rs.si/wps/portal/en/Home/AboutNA/PoliticalSystem/CodeEthics.  
90   During  discussions  on  two  proposals,  some  members  of  the  Council  proposed  a  different  classification  of 
violation,  so  the  Council  (in  both  cases)  first  voted  on  a  stricter  sanction  as  the  one  proposed,  i.e.,  a 
reprimand publicly disclosed on the website of Parliament. The vote failed, so they moved on to vote on a 
less severe sanction, i.e. a reprimand without public disclosure. The third proposal was discussed in January 
2022,  but  the  proposed  sanction  was  not  approved.  Written  contribution  from  Parliament  following  the 
country visit to Slovenia. 

91   RTV, The first breach of the Parliamentary Code of Ethics, 9 June 2021.  
92   In  2021,  64  contacts  with  registered  lobbyists  were  sent,  as  well  as  2 808  contacts  with  non-registered 

lobbyists, see Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 2022, p. 35.  

93   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15, and written contribution from the Commission 

for the Prevention of Corruption following the country visit to Slovenia.  

94   Contact webpage here: https://erar.si/lobiranje/.  
95   Written contribution from the Government following the country visit to Slovenia. 

14 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
the  Prevention  of  Corruption  carried  out  12  proceedings  regarding  violations  of  these  rules 
and concluded they had been breached in five cases (18 in 2020)96.  

The  respect  of  rules  on  political  party  financing  is  being  monitored  by  the  Court  of 
Audit. The Court of Audit monitors the regularity of political parties’ operations, conducts a 
mandatory  review  of  their  annual  reports,  and  can  file  criminal  notifications  in  cases  of 
financial misdemeanours. In 2021, the Court of Audit audited small political parties receiving 
up  to  EUR  300 00097.  From  a  total  of  12  audited  political  parties,  the  Court  of  Audit 
delivered eight unqualified opinions, four qualified opinions (with more comments regarding 
irregularities),  and  no  negative  opinions98.  Some  stakeholders  highlighted  that  in  the  past, 
irregularities  in  financing  of  political  parties  occurred  right  after  the  Court  of  Audit 
conducted its audit, which means that the audits should be made more frequently99.  

The Government aims to strengthen the rules on whistleblower protection. In December 
2021, the Ministry of Justice submitted into public consultation a draft proposal to extend the 
scope of protection provided by Integrity and Prevention of Corruption Act and to transpose 
the  Whistleblowers  Directive100In  2021,  the  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption 
received  one  request  for  whistleblower  protection  and  assisted  in  establishing  a  causal  link 
between the initial report and the retaliatory measures suffered by the whistleblower101.  

Several actions have been implemented during the COVID-19 pandemic with the aim to 
address  the  risk  of  corruption,  especially  in  public  procurement.  In  2021,  the 
Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  extended  its  systemic  oversight,  started  in 
2020,  of  public  sector  entities  that  have  procured  protective  equipment,  and  focused  on 
municipalities and hospitals. Additionally, the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption 
issued a recommendation to the Ministry of Health regarding the identified risks connected to 
lack  of  supervision  of  quality  and  quantity  of  distributed  medical  supplies  and  other  goods 
(COVID-19  tests)102.  The  Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  concluded  in  2022 
that established procurement standards were not guaranteed in procedures which, for reasons 
of  urgency,  were,  according  to  the  Commission,  already  carried  out  in  a  less  transparent 
manner103. The National  Review Commission  received three  audit  requests  in  2021 (like in 
2020) related to public procurement procedures for the management of the pandemic104. The 
National  Review  Commission  also  opened  five  misdemeanour  cases  in  2021  in  connection 
with  public  procurement  procedures  to  manage  the  pandemic  (compared  to  13  in  2020)105. 

96   Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 15-16, written contribution from the Commission 
for the Prevention of Corruption following the country visit to Slovenia; Commission for the Prevention of 
Corruption (2022), 2021 Report, 26 May 2022, section 3.     

97   The Court of Audit is legally required to audit 1/3 of the parties, the smallest (local) parties came last.  
98   Information received from the Court of Audit in the context of country visit to Slovenia.  See also Court of 

Audit, annual report 2021, section 7. 

99   Information  received  from  Transparency  International-Slovenia  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to 

Slovenia. 

100  Directive (EU) 2019/1937 on the protection of persons who report breaches of Union law. 
101  Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. p. 17. 
102  Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 18-19.  
103  Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, Press release: breach of integrity of the minister for economy, 

23 February 2022. 

104  Two requests for review were rejected as unfounded and in relation to one request for review, the National 
Review Commission found that the infringements found could not be remedied in the review procedure. 
105  Three of these were opened upon proposal from the Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, one at the 

request of the Ministry of the Interior and one of these ex officio.  

15 

 
                                                 
Three misdemeanour proceedings were resolved in  2021, of  which one from 2020 and two 
from 2021, in all of which the misdemeanour procedure was halted106. Slovenia amended its 
public  procurement  legislation,  as  set  out  in  its  Recovery  and  Resilience  Plan107.  The 
resulting  new  Public  Procurement  Act,  in  force  since  1  January  2022,  aims  to  increase 
digitalisation  and  competition  in  public  procurement  procedures108.  The  Court  of  Audit  is 
conducting two audits relating to COVID-19 pandemic measures109.  

III.  MEDIA PLURALISM 

In Slovenia, the legal framework for freedom of expression and information is established by 
the Constitution, while media plurality is ensured through specific secondary legislation. The 
audiovisual-media services regulator, the Agency for Communication Networks and Services 
(AKOS),  is  an  independent  authority,  which  is  legally  and  functionally  distinct  from  the 
Government. The rules on transparency of media ownership require companies to declare to 
the competition authorities the ownership or management influence above a certain threshold. 
A considerable change in ownership requires also the agreement of the competent ministry. 
Legislation  aimed  at  transposing  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  has  been 
adopted110. 

The  independence  of  the  audio-visual  media  services  regulator  is  ensured  by  the 
Electronic  Communications  Act.  The  independent  status  of  AKOS  is  guaranteed  by  the 
Electronic  Communications  Act111,  and  the  Agency  draws  its  enforcement  powers  in  the 
audiovisual  media  field  from  the  Mass  Media  Act112  and  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
Act113.  The  updated  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Act  adopted  in  December  2021  aimed  at 
transposing the Audiovisual Media Services Directive. A draft law aiming at transposing the 
Electronic  Communications  Code  is  still  pending114;  the  law  would  also  include  the 
conditions and procedures for the appointment and dismissal of the head and members of the 
collegiate body of AKOS. As reported in the 2021 Report, challenges persist concerning the 
effectiveness  of the  draft  new legal  framework  in ensuring the independent  performance of 

106  Contribution from the National Review Commission for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 
107  On proposal from the Commission, the Council adopted the Council Implementing Decision of 16 July 2021 
on  the  approval  of  the  assessment  of  the  recovery  and  resilience  plan  for  Slovenia,  under  which  the 
Milestone no. 174 states: ‘The Public Procurement Act shall include, inter alia, simplification of procedures 
to enable supplementation and clarification of bids when selecting tenderers, and elimination of abnormally 
low tenders. It shall aim at the digital transformation of public procurement and at increasing competition in 
public procurement procedures and reduction of the number of single bids.’ The Commission assessment of 
the fulfilment of this milestone is pending, awaiting the payment request from Slovenia.  

108  Input from Slovenia for the 2021 Rule of Law Report, p. 18. 
109  One regarding subsidies to employees worth EUR 1 billion (looking into implementation of rules in different 
parts  of  the  public  sector),  and  one  regarding  subsidies  for  loans  worth  EUR  60  million.  Information 
received from the Court of Audit in the context of country visit to Slovenia. 

110  Complete  transposition of the Audiovisual  Media  Services  Directive  was  notified to the Commission on 4 
February  2022.  Slovenia  ranks  56th  in  the  2022  Reporters  without  Borders  World  Press  Freedom  Index 
compared to 36th position in the previous year.  

111  Electronic Communications Act. 
112  On 13 May 2022, the opposition deputies in the newly established Parliament submitted  draft amendments 

to the Mass Media Act. 

113  Audiovisual Media Services Act. 
114  On  13  May  2022,  the  opposition  deputies  in  the  newly  established  Parliament  submitted  the  new  draft 

Electronic Communications Act. 

16 

 
                                                 
media regulatory functions of AKOS115. The financial independence of the agency continues 
to  be  guaranteed  by  its  financing  system,  based  on  the  collection  of  fees  generated  from 
AKOS  activities.  The  regulator  is  responsible  for  a  broad  variety  of  tasks116.  Additional 
resources were granted to the regulator  in the field of audiovisual media services  following 
the  new  tasks  attributed  with  the  transposition  of  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services 
Directive117.  However,  fully  implementing  the  extensive  competences  with  the  available 
resources  remains  a  challenge.  The  lack  of  safeguards  against  political  interference  also 
remains  a  concern118.  The  Media  Pluralism  Monitor  2022  indicates  a  medium  risk  for  the 
indicator on the independence and effectiveness of the media authority119.  

A  regulatory  gap  for  addressing  high  concentration  of  media  raises  concerns.  News 
media concentration continues to be a concern, as the Slovenian media market is dominated 
by few players120. According to MPM 2022, horizontal concentration is very high in the radio 
sector, which is followed by the magazine and the audiovisual sector121. The Mass Media Act 
regulates the protection of media pluralism and diversity; it also includes several mechanisms 
and  procedures  on  restrictions  on  ownership  and  concentration122.  Regarding  media 
concentration,  the  legislation  also  prohibits  combining  radio,  television  and  print  medium 
activities  but  this  legal  limitation  appears  to  be  often  circumvented  in  practice  by  using 
complex ownership structures123. According to MPM 2022, the limitations provided by law 
are not always implemented and there is a lack of data on the market share of specific media 
outlets.  Therefore  MPM  2022  reports  a  high  risk  for  the  indicator  on  news  media 
concentration124. As raised by nearly all stakeholders, concerns remain regarding a regulatory 
gap  in  addressing  the  media  concentration125.  The  situation  regarding  media  concentration 
shows a lack of appropriate legal framework and empowered authorities to address the issue.  

Challenges remain in identifying the ultimate ownership structure of certain media. As 
reported  in  the  2021  Report,  Slovenia  has  in  place  specific  provisions  on  transparency  of 
media ownership126 which were updated following the adoption of amendments of December 
2021  to  the  Audiovisual  Media  Services  Act.  The  revised  law  requires  that  audio-visual 
media  service  providers  publish  information  about  individual  ownership  or  management 
stakes in the company, when they exceed 5%. Several stakeholders indicated there are some 
persisting challenges concerning the identification of the ultimate ownership in certain media 

115  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 16 and information 

received from AKOS in the context of the country visit to Slovenia.  

116  The  convergent  regulator  AKOS  has  tasks  in  telecommunications,  electronic  media,  postal  and  railway 

services, is also responsible for regulation of audiovisual media, radio services and online media.  

117  Information received from AKOS in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 
118  AKOS is managed by its Director and the Agency’s Council. Both are appointed by the Government based 
on a selection procedure, with the Director being proposed to the Government by the responsible minister. 
2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 15. 

119  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 13.  
120  Information received from the Ministry of Culture in the context of the country visits to Slovenia. 
121  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 14. 
122  Section 9, Mass Media Act. 
123  Information  received  from  the  Association  of  Journalists  and  Publicists  and  Transparency  International-

Slovenia in the context of the country visit to Slovenia. 

124  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 14. 
125  Information  received  from  Ministry  of  Culture,  Association  of  Journalists  and  Publicists,  Union  of 
Journalists  and  Transparency  International-Slovenia  in  the  context  of  the  country  visits  to  Slovenia  and 
Contribution from Liberties (Peace Institute) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 4-5.  
126  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 16. 

17 

 
                                                 
outlets127.  As  mentioned  in  the  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  a  proposed  update  of  the  Mass 
Media  Act  would  have  addressed  these  issues,  for  example  by  removing  the  minimum 
threshold  of  5%128,  however,  the  draft  law  has  not  progressed  toward  adoption129.  The 
situation  regarding  the  transparency  of  media  ownership  shows  that  the  legal  framework  is 
insufficient  particularly  regarding  complex  ownership  structures  (including  beneficial 
owners)130 and that a clarification of the authority designated to address the issues would be 
necessary. Following these shortcomings, the 2022 MPM reports a medium risk concerning 
the indicator on transparency of media ownership131. The Mass Media Act also regulates the 
procedures for the granting of operating licences to radio and television broadcasters132. The 
concession  of  a  licence  involves  double  registration:  first  in  the  Court  Register  and 
subsequently in the Mass Media Register, managed by the Ministry of Culture133.  

There was no progress concerning allocation of state advertising. As reported in the 2021 
Rule  of  Law  Report134,  there  are  no  specific  obligations  for  authorities  or  media  outlets  to 
report  on  allocation  of  state  advertising.  Several  sources  and  reports135  pointed  out  that  the 
situation  is  particularly  non-transparent  for  local  media.  Furthermore,  the  distribution  of 
support  funds  for  media  pluralism  is  considered  to  be  transparent.  However,  in  some 
instances doubts were raised about fairness of allocation of the annual media support scheme 
for 2021, which provides direct subsidies to media for their projects of content production136. 
The  MPM  2022  reports  a  high  risk  on  the  indicator  on  state  regulation  of  resources  and 
support to media sector137.  

Despite some legal safeguards ensuring independence of public service media, there are 
challenges  concerning  their  effectiveness  in  limiting  political  influence.  The  general 
principles  relating  to  editorial  independence  are  established  in  the  Mass  Media  Act138.  The 
Radio  Television  Slovenia  Act  provides  specific  safeguards  for  the  independence  of  the 
public  service  broadcaster  RTV  Slovenia139.  The  Government  has  the  duty  to  ensure 
autonomy  and  editorial  independence  of  RTV  and  to  provide  adequate  funding  for  the 

127  Information received from Association of Journalists and Publicists and Transparency International-Slovenia 
in  the  context  of  the  country  visits  to  Slovenia.  Contribution  from  Liberties  (Peace  Institute)  for  the  2022 
Rule of Law Report, pp. 6-7, and Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Slovenia, 
Commissioner for Human Rights, Council of Europe, p. 13. 

128  2021 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 16. 
129  On 13 May 2022, the opposition deputies in the newly established Parliament submitted draft amendments 

to the Mass Media Act. 

130  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 14. 
131  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 14.  
132  Article 10, Mass Media Act. 
133  Article 12, Mass Media Act. 
134  2021 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 17. 
135  2021 Rule of Law Report, country chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 17. 
136  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 19. 
137  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 18. 
138  The  Mass  Media  Act  stipulates  in  Article  6  that  mass  media  activities  in  Slovenia  shall  be  based  on  the 
freedom  of  expression,  the  inviolability  and  protection  of  human  personality  and  dignity,  the  free  flow  of 
information,  media  openness  to  different  opinions  and  beliefs  and  to  diverse  content,  the  autonomy  of 
editorial personnel, journalists and other authors in creating programmes in accordance with the programme 
concepts  and  professional  codes  of  behaviour,  and  on  the  personal  responsibility  of  journalists,  other 
authors/creators of contributions and editorial personnel for the consequences of their work. 

139  On 13 May 2022, the opposition deputies in the newly established Parliament submitted draft  amendments 
to the RTV Slovenia Act, which includes, among others, the abolition of the mandatory broadcasting fee. On 
18 May 2022, a proposal for a consultative referendum on this proposal was submitted to Parliament. 

18 

 
                                                 
provision  of  public  service140.  The  economic  independence  of  RTV  is  ensured  by 
broadcasting fees directly collected by the broadcaster141. The rules allow for a dismissal of 
the two Directors of Television or Radio in case they do not fulfil the tasks given to them by 
the  Director  General,  pointing  to  a  need  for  specific  safeguards  against  overly  broad 
interpretation  of  those  rules142.  While  the  legal  framework  contains  fair  and  transparent 
provisions on the appointment procedures for the management and board functions of RTV 
Slovenia,  at  the  same  time  their  practical  effectiveness  in  limiting  political  influence  is 
questionable, due to the fact that the majority of the Programme Council and the Supervisory 
Council  is  appointed  by  Parliament,  political  parties,  and  the  Government143.  The  2022 
edition of the MPM, reports a very high risk for the indicator on the independence of public 
service  media  governance144.  MPM  2022  also  reports  that  the  operations  of  RTV  Slovenia 
were affected following delays in the approval of the financial yearly plan145. Stakeholders as 
well  as  the  Council  of  Europe  have  pointed  to  recent  cases  of  intimidation  towards  public 
service  media  journalists  and  of  appointment  of  managerial  positions  as  signalling  possible 
interference  with  the  editorial  independence  of  the  broadcaster146.  On  1  July  2022,  the 
Government  submitted  into  legislative  procedure  amendments  to  the  RTV  Slovenia  Act, 
which amongst others envisage changes to the managing and supervising bodies of the RTV. 

The  issues  related  to  the  funding  of  STA  were  resolved,  allowing  for  more  financial 
stability of the agency. The Slovenian Press Agency (STA) has a similar legal status as RTV 
Slovenia when it comes to institutional and editorial independence147. STA is financed from 
the  state  budget  according  to  an  annual  contract  with  the  Government.  As  reported  in  the 
2021  Rule  of  Law  Report148,  there  were  delays  in  payments  to  the  STA,  which  were 
considered  by  stakeholders  as  politically  motivated  and  led  to  a  number  of  staff  leaving149. 
The funding for 2021 and 2022 has been now agreed, allowing more stability for the Agency 
despite  some  concerns  regarding  the  new  provisions  which  could  possibly  affect  indirectly 

140  Article 2 of RTV Slovenia Act.  
141  RTV Slovenia is governed by the Director General, Directors of Television and Radio, Programme Council, 
and  the  Supervisory  Council.  The  Programme  Council  and  the  Supervisory  Council  are  composed  of 
members elected by Parliament,  while the Director General is appointed, on the basis of a public vacancy, 
and  may be dismissed by the Programme Council. The  Director General is responsible  for appointing and 
dismissing the directors and the editor-in-chief. 

142  Articles 54-55 of the RTV Statute. 
143  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 19. 
144  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 19.  
145  The yearly financial plan was approved only in March 2021, 2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report 
for  Slovenia,  p.  19;  according  to  a  recently  signed  coalition  agreement,  the  Slovenian  Government  is 
planning  to  revise  several  media  laws,  including  those  governing  STA  and  RTV  Slovenia,  Coalition 
Agreement of 24 May 2022. 

146  Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Slovenia – Commissioner for Human Rights, 
Council  of  Europe,  p.  11,  and  STA,  ‘RTV  Slovenija  staff  protest  against  pressure,  demand  full  editorial 
autonomy’.  According  to  Article  13  of  the  Council  of  Europe’  s  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2012)1  of  the 
Committee  of  Ministers  to  member  States  on  public  service  media  governance,  it  is  fundamental  to 
guarantee editorial and operational independence of public service media. 

147  On  13  May  2022, opposition  deputies  in  the  newly  established  Parliament  submitted  draft  amendments  to 
the Law on the STA. According to STA, the proposal appears to be a major step backwards as, for example, 
it  contains  provisions  that  would  give  power  to  the  Government  to  appoint  the  STA  supervisory  board,  a 
power that currently rests with Parliament.  

148  2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 17. 
149  See  for  example  MFRR  partners  raise  serious  concerns  over  suspension  of  funding  to  Slovenian  Press 

Agency, and Ostro, Journalists are leaving STA due to insecure situation, 15 September 2021. 

19 

 
                                                 
the editorial autonomy of the agency150. Due to these challenges, MPM 2022 assesses a high 
risk on the indicator on political independence of media151. 

The  right  to  information  is  enshrined  in  the  Constitution.  Access  to  information  is 
regulated by the Access  to Public Information Act. No concrete cases  were reported during 
last  year  concerning  journalists  facing  obstacles  accessing  public  information152.  However, 
several stakeholders pointed  to  some difficulties for journalists to  receive information  from 
political authorities153.  

The  situation  of  journalists  continues  to  deteriorate154.  The  freedoms  of  expression  and 
information  are  enshrined  in  the  Constitution,  and  effectively  protected  through  judicial 
remedies.  However,  online  harassment  and  threats  against  journalists  continue  to  be 
numerous155. In practice, different sources and stakeholders156 have noted that journalists are 
operating  in  an  increasing  hostile  environment,  which  risks  undermining  their  work  and  in 
particular public service media. A study has also reported on hate narratives in online media 
and  online  communication,  in  particular  towards  journalists157.  The  2022  MPM  reports  a 
medium risk concerning the indicator on journalistic profession, standards and protection158. 
Since  July  2021,  the  Council  of  Europe’s  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism 
and  safety  of  journalists  published  twelve  alerts159,  which  relates  to  harassment  and 
intimidation of journalists and have all been replied by the Government. 19 alerts have been 
published  on  the  Mapping  Media  Freedom  platform160,  which  registered  several  cases  of 
lawsuits against journalists and media outlets with intimidating effects during the last year.  

IV.  OTHER INSTITUTIONAL ISSUES RELATED TO CHECKS AND BALANCES 

Slovenia  has  a  parliamentary  system  of  government  with  an  imperfect  bicameral  structure, 
where  only  the  National  Assembly  (the  first  chamber  of  Parliament),  and  not  the  National 
Council (the  second chamber of Parliament), adopts  laws161. Draft legislation can be tabled 
by  the  Government,  any  member  of  Parliament  (the  National  Assembly),  the  National 
Council or at least 5 000 ‘voters’. The Constitutional Court carries out ex post constitutional 
review, including in concrete cases on the basis of a constitutional complaint. In addition to 

150  Contribution from Liberties (Peace institute) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 8.  
151  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 16. 
152  As  reported  in  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  the  process  of  obtaining  public  information  is  often  long,  2021 

Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 18. 

153  Information  received  from  Union  of  Journalists  and  STA  in  the  context  of  the  country  visit  to  Slovenia; 
Memorandum on freedom of expression and media freedom in Slovenia – Commissioner for Human Rights, 
Council of Europe, p. 10. 

154  See  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law  situation  in  Slovenia,  p.  18,  and  2020 

Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation in Slovenia, p. 13. 

155  2022  Media  Pluralism  Monitor,  country  report  for  Slovenia,  p.  12,  and  as  reported  by  the  Slovenian 
Association of Journalists, during  2021, at least 32 attacks on journalists and  media outlets  were reported, 
including verbal and physical attacks. 

156  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  for  the  2022 
Rule of Law Report, p. 512; Franet (2022), Country research - Legal environment and space of civil society 
organisations in supporting fundamental rights – Slovenia. 

157  Peace Institute study on ‘Hostile narrative in online media and environment in Slovenia’, 4 December 2020. 
158  2022 Media Pluralism Monitor, country report for Slovenia, p. 12.  
159  Council of Europe, Platform to promote the protection of journalism and safety of journalists.  
160  Mapping Media Freedom, country profile Slovenia. 
161  Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 22 October 2008, U-I-295/07.  

20 

 
                                                 
the justice system and other bodies, the Human Rights Ombudsperson and the Advocate of 
the Principle of Equality are also in charge of the protection of the rights of individuals. 

The share of laws adopted by urgent procedure in Parliament has decreased. Parliament 
continued to function normally, despite the COVID-19 pandemic, including by organising 11 
remote sessions162. As an indication of openness, the number of participants that attended the 
sessions of the parliamentary working bodies increased in 2021 (by about 10% compared to 
2020),  while  the  number  of  submissions  of  documents  to  Parliament  by  civil  society 
decreased163.  In  2021,  the  share  of  laws  adopted  by  urgent  procedure  decreased  (17%, 
compared to 32% in 2020), which is comparable to the share before the COVID-19 pandemic 
(20% in 2018, 18% in 2019). As regards the public consultations on draft laws on the side of 
the Government, their duration mostly continues to be shorter than the recommended 30-day 
period164. 

The  Constitutional  Court  had  to  deal  with  an  increase  in  cases  related  to  COVID-19 
pandemic  measures.  In  2021,  the  Constitutional  Court  received  680  cases  related  to 
COVID-19  pandemic  measures,  675  of  which  related  to  initiatives  and  requests  for 
constitutionality review and 5 constitutional complaints. It delivered 9 judgments165 resolving 
73 initiatives and requests and four constitutional complaints. In total, the Court noted a 3,5% 
increase  in  cases  in  2021,  compared  to  2020,  when  excluding  collective  cases166.  This 
increase  in  caseload  led  to  a  higher  backlog  (10%  more  compared  to  2020),  as  the  Court 
resolved 12% fewer cases in 2021. The Constitutional Court highlighted the need to increase 
the number of legal advisers to tackle the backlog, but a proposal to increase the 2022 budget 
for  this  purpose  was  rejected  by  the  Government  –  a  move  that  the  Court  considers  as 
contrary  to  the  financial  autonomy  of  certain  independent  bodies167.  Moreover,  on  17  June 
2021, the Constitutional Court found the Government decrees prohibiting public protests and 
limiting the total number of participants to 10 persons to severely interfere with the right to 
freedom  of  peaceful  assembly  and  annulled  them168.  The  Court  decided  that  the  measures 

162  Written  contribution  from  Parliament  following  the  country  visit  to  Slovenia:  Slovenian  Parliament, 

Research Paper No. 34/2021.  

163  Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 25. 
164  Counter  of  violations  of 

the  2009  Parliament  Resolution  on 

https://www.cnvos.si/stevec-krsitev/.  

the  normative  activity,  CNVOS: 

165  In total, since the beginning of the pandemic in March 2020, the Court received 848 such cases. In 2020 and 
2021 combined, the Court delivered 12 judgments on COVID-19 pandemic measures. Written contribution 
from the Constitutional Court following the country visit to Slovenia. 

166  In  2021,  the  Court  received  1  365  cases,  compared  to  1  319  in  2020.  It  also  received  555  collective 
initiatives  for  constitutionality  review.  While  constitutional  complaints  slightly  decreased  (but  still  made 
77% of the cases), the initiatives and requests for constitutionality review grew by 16% compared to 2020 – 
continuing the trend since 2018, and especially since 2020. 

167  It  is  to  be  noted  that  the  2021  budget  for  the  Constitutional  Court  increased  by  5%  (compared  to  2020 
budget). Written contribution from the Constitutional Court following the country visit to Slovenia. On the 
judgment of the Constitutional Court of 10 December 2020, U-I-474/18-17, see the paragraph in this section 
on the financial independence of certain independent bodies. 

168  According to the petitioners, the Police fined some of the people who assembled only for carrying bicycles, 
which  was  deemed  as  expressing  an  opinion,  while  standing  in  line  at  a  supermarket  was  permissible. 
Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 17 June 2021, U-I-50/21, paras. 4 and 31. The Government decrees 
completely prohibited public protests between 27 February and 17 March and between 1 April and 18 April 
2021, and then limited public protests to up to 10 participants between 18 March and 31 March, as well as 
between 23 April and 14 May 2021.  

21 

 
                                                 
were not necessary because less intrusive measures exist169 and that the Government had not 
ascertained whether such less intrusive measures are sufficient. 

On 1 January 2022, Slovenia had 4 leading judgments of the European Court of Human 
Rights pending implementation170. At that time, Slovenia’s rate of leading judgments from 
the  past  10  years  that  remained  pending  was  only  at  12%  and  the  average  time  that  the 
judgments had been pending implementation was 1 year and 10 months171. The oldest leading 
judgment, pending implementation for 4 years, concerns the access to justice and the fairness 
of judicial proceedings in criminal law172. On 1 July 2022, the number of leading judgments 
pending implementation has increased to 5173. 

The  law  on  public  finances  lacks  safeguards  on  budgetary  autonomy  of  certain 
independent bodies as required by a Constitutional Court judgment. The 2021 Rule of 
Law Report noted that, in December 2020, the Constitutional Court found parts of the Public 
Finance Act to be unconstitutional as they lacked requisite safeguards to define the budget of 
the  National  Council  (the  second  chamber  of  the  Parliament),  the  Constitutional  Court,  the 
Human Rights Ombudsperson and the Court of Audit174. The Constitutional Court annulled 
parts of the Public Finance Act and set provisional rules to ensure budgetary autonomy of the 
independent  bodies,  until  the  Public  Finance  Act  would  have  been  amended175.  The 
Constitutional Court set the deadline for the implementation of the decision to 23 December 
2021, but no amendment has been tabled.  

The  Human  Rights  Ombudsperson  received  an  increased  number  of  complaints, 
including  those  related  to  COVID-19  pandemic  measures.  The  overall  number  of 
complaints  to  the  Ombudsperson,  which  gained  A-status  in  2021176,  considerably  increased 

169  The Court noted that a whole set of measures by which it is possible to prevent the spread of communicable 
diseases at public protests exists, and which interfere to a lesser extent with the right of peaceful assembly 
and  public  meeting.  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  17  June  2021,  U-I-50/21,  para.  40.  As  the 
Government decrees had in the meantime ceased to be in force, the Constitutional Court merely established 
that they were inconsistent with the Constitution in the part prohibiting all public protests or limiting them to 
a  maximum  of  10  participants.  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights 
Institutions (ENNHRI) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 502. 

170  The adoption of necessary execution  measures  for a  judgment by the European  Court of Human  Rights is 
supervised by the Committee of Ministers of the Council of Europe. It is the Committee’s practice to group 
cases against a State requiring similar execution measures, particularly general measures, and examine them 
jointly. The first case in the group is designated as the leading case as regards the supervision of the general 
measures and repetitive cases within the group can be closed when it is assessed that all possible individual 
measures needed to provide redress to the applicant have been taken. 

171  All figures are calculated by the European Implementation Network and are based on the number of cases 
that  are  considered  pending  at  the  annual  cut-off  date  of  1  January  2022.  See  the  Contribution  from  the 
European Implementation Network for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 71.  

172  Judgment  of  the  European  Court  of  Human  Rights  of  28  August  2018,  Vizgirda  v.  Slovenia,  59868/08, 

pending implementation since 2018.  

173  Data according to the online database of the Council of Europe (HUDOC). 
174  Previously, these bodies submitted their suggestions for budget to the Ministry of  Finance,  which  was not 
obliged  to  follow  the  proposed  amount.  2021  Rule  of  Law  Report,  Country  Chapter  on  the  rule  of  law 
situation  in  Slovenia,  p.  21.  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  10  December  2020,  U-I-474/18-17 
paras.  51-52.  Contribution  from  the  European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI) 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 496. 

175  According  to  these  rules,  the  Government  is  now  required  to  guarantee  the  budget  for  these  institutions 
without influencing its amount and send the proposal to Parliament. Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 
10 December 2020, U-I-474/18-17.  

176  According to the Principles relating to the Status of National Institutions (The Paris Principles). 

22 

 
                                                 
compared to the start of COVID-19 pandemic177. It includes complaints related to COVID-19 
measures178. The Ombudsperson reiterated its recommendation to the Government to amend 
the Communicable Diseases Act. This is in line with a judgment of the Constitutional Court 
establishing  the  unconstitutionality  of  several  of  the  Act’s  provisions,  the  deadline  for  the 
implementation  of  which  passed  in  August  2021179.  In  September  2021,  the  Government 
prepared  a  joint  response  report  aiming  to  address  the  Ombudsperson’s  recommendations. 
According to the assessments of individual ministries regarding the latest recommendations, 
29 recommendations are being processed, 22 recommendations were fully fulfilled, 31 were 
partly fulfilled and 23 remain unfulfilled180. The Ombudsperson noted that a large number of 
recommendations still remain partially or non-implemented181. 

Civil  society  faced  challenges  regarding  negative  narratives,  but  funding  issues  and 
limitations  on  freedom  of  assembly  were  resolved.  The  civic  space  in  Slovenia  is 
considered  to  be  narrowed182.  The  first  report  on  the  implementation  of  the  ‘Strategy  on 
Development  of  Non-Governmental  Organisations  and  Volunteering  (2018-2020)’  was 
prepared,  received  a  positive  opinion  from  the  Government  council  for  non-governmental 
organisations and volunteering, but was not adopted by the Government183. This report would 
provide an evaluation of the Strategy and how its objectives have been achieved. As regards 
the  financing  of  civil  society  organisations  (CSOs),  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration 
published  two  public  tenders  in  2021:  one  encouraging  CSOs  partnerships  in  international 
projects184, and one encouraging their digital transformation. However, stakeholders reported 
that  the  criteria  set  in  another  two  tenders  published  in  May  2021  introduced  de  facto 
discriminatory conditions aimed at limiting the participation of CSOs, but were revised prior 
to closing date185. Stakeholders reported an increase of negative narrative addressed to CSOs. 

177  Number of complaints reached about 7 000 in 2021 (6 852 in 2020, and 4 600 in 2019). Contribution from 
the European Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, 
p. 520. 

178  Over 1 400, compared to over 1 000 in 2020. Contribution from the European Network of National Human 

Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 520. 

179  Judgment  of  the  Constitutional  Court  of  13  May  2021,  U-I-79/20-24.  Contribution  from  the  European 
Network of National Human Rights Institutions (ENNHRI) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 507. While 
amendments  to  implement  the  judgment  were  proposed  by  the  Government  and  passed  by  the  National 
Assembly in July 2021, a veto by the National Council required a re-vote by the National Assembly that was 
unsuccessful as the higher majority required was not obtained. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law 
Report, p. 31. 

180  Among  the  recommendations  that  Ombudsperson  gave  in  its  reports  adopted  before  2021,  the  ministries 
assessed that 25 of them are being dealt with, 34 recommendations were fulfilled, 48 were partly fulfilled, 17 
remain  unfulfilled  and  the  fulfilment  of  14  recommendations  was  rejected  by  the  ministries  due  to  their 
disagreement. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31. 

181  Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 31. In 2021, the Ombudsperson sent altogether 223 
reminders (urgencies) to various public authorities to implement their recommendations, among which: 49 to 
the Ministry of Labour, Family, Social Affairs and Equal Opportunities, 45 to the Ministry of Health, 33 to 
the  Ministry  of  Education,  Science  and  Sport,  15  to  the  Ministry  of  Finance,  and  11  to  the  Government. 
Written contribution from the Human Rights Ombudsperson following the country visit to Slovenia. 

182  Rating  given  by  Civicus,  Slovenia;  ratings  are  on  a  five-category  scale  defined  as:  open,  narrowed, 

obstructed, repressed and closed. 

183  Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 34. 
184  CSOs  project  were  selected  in  tenders  co-financed  either  from  the  EU  budget  or  the  EFTA  Financial 

Mechanism Office. Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, p. 35. 

185  They  also  reported  that  almost  no  CSO  could  meet  these  criteria,  and  that  similar  criteria  have  been 
suspended  by  the  Constitutional  Court.  Following  criticism,  the  Ministry  of  Public  Administration  revised 
the  criteria  in  July  2021.  The  criteria  required  the  CSOs  set  up  as  associations  to  have  at  least  50  active 
members  and  CSOs  set  up  as  institutes  to  have  at  least  three  full-time  staff  educated  in  the  field  of 

23 

 
                                                 
 
For instance, in February 2021, one of the political parties of the then Government coalition 
circulated  a survey  which included a question  on the appropriateness  of  public funds being 
spent on CSOs, instead of care or student homes186. The Constitutional Court found that the 
certain Government decrees severely interfere with the right to freedom of peaceful assembly 
and annulled them187. Responding to these issues, in early 2021, four CSOs set up the ‘Legal 
network  for  the  protection  of  democracy’,  which  provided  legal  support  to  individuals  and 
organisations involved in legal proceedings due to non-violent public action188. 

organisation’s  activity.  No  similar  criteria,  however,  were  applicable  to  other  entities  (e.g.  companies). 
Contribution from the Fundamental Rights Agency for the 2022 Rule of Law Report, pp. 14-15. 

186  The  survey  asked  whether  they  found  it  appropriate  that  ”the  20  best-funded  so-called  ‘non-governmental 
organisations’, mostly from Metelkova 6 in Ljubljana, received as much as EUR 70 million from the budget, 
while  EUR  31  million  were  spent  on  renovating  care  homes  and  EUR  35  million  was  spent  on  student 
housing.”  Franet (2022), Country research  -  Legal environment and  space of civil  society organisations  in 
supporting fundamental rights – Slovenia, pp. 11-12. 

187  Judgment of the Constitutional Court of 17 June 2021, U-I-50/21. See paragraph on the Constitutional Court. 
188  Within the network, qualified lawyers and law firms assisted to legally challenge procedures and practices 
considered  illegal  (e.g.  disproportionate  fines  for  public  engagement,  criminal  investigations  and  suits  for 
damages intended to limit criticism or pressure the civil society). By November 2021, the lawyers provided 
support in about one thousand cases. In May 2021, the network set up a mechanism for monitoring protests 
due  to  claims  that  the  Police  used  excessive  force  and  treated  the  protesters  selectively.  Franet  (2022), 
Country  research  -  Legal  environment  and  space  of  civil  society  organisations  in  supporting  fundamental 
rights – Slovenia, pp. 11-12.  

24 

 
                                                                                                                                                        
Annex I: List of sources in alphabetical order* 

* The list of contributions received in the context of the consultation for the 2022 Rule of Law report 
can  be  found  at  https://ec.europa.eu/info/publications/2022-rule-law-report-targeted-stakeholder-
consultation_en. 

Centre for Media Pluralism and Media Freedom (2022), Media pluralism monitor. 

Civicus, Monitor tracking civic space – Slovenia https://monitor.civicus.org/country/slovenia/. 

Commission  for the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2021),  2020  Report,  20  May  2021  https://www.kpk-
rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/LP2020K.pdf.  

Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2021),  Initiative,  20  May  2021  https://www.kpk-
rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/POBUDA-VLADI-RS_06244-27-2020-41.pdf. 

Commission  for the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2022),  2021  Report,  26  May  2022  https://www.kpk-
rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2022/05/LP2021.pdf. 

Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2022),  Press  release:  breach  of  integrity  of  the 
minister  for  economy,  23  February  2022  https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/02/23/krsitev-integritete-
ministra-za-gospodarski-razvoj-in-tehnologijo/. 

Commission  for  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  (2022),  Press  release:  Commission  calls  the  newly 
elected  members  of  Parliament  to  respect  the  conflict  of  interest  provisions,  11  May  2022 
https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/05/11/poziv-komisije-novoizvoljenim-funkcionarjem-poslancem-k-
spostovanju-dolocb-o-nezdruzljivosti-funkcij/. 

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Press release: final findings about a conflict of 
interest  of  the  Prime  Minister,  4  April  2022  https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/04/04/pravnomocne-
ugotovitve-o-krsitvi-nasprotja-interesov-predsednika-vlade/. 

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022),  Press release: reply to untrue and misleading 
statements  in  pre-election  debates,  19  April  2022  https://www.kpk-rs.si/blog/2022/04/19/odziv-
komisije-na-neresnicne-in-zavajajoce-navedbe-v-predvolilnih-soocenjih/. 

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption (2022), Written contribution from the Commission for 
the Prevention of Corruption following the country visit to Slovenia.   

Commission for the Prevention of Corruption, the Court of Audit, the Information Commissioner and 
the Human Rights Ombudsman (2021), Joint statement of the four autonomous and independent state 
authorities, 
https://www.kpk-rs.si/kpk/wp-content/uploads/2021/07/izjava-za-
javnost_11.6.2021.pdf. 

2021 

June 

11 

Constitutional Court (2022), Written contribution from the Constitutional Court following the country 
visit to Slovenia. 

Constitutional  Court,  judgment  of  10  December  2020,  U-I-474/18-17  https://www.us-rs.si/wp-
content/uploads/2020/12/U-I-474-18.pdf. 

Constitutional  Court,  judgment  of  13  May  2021,  U-I-79/20-24  https://www.us-rs.si/odlocba-
ustavnega-sodisca-st-u-i-79-20-z-dne-13-5-2021/. 

Constitutional  Court, 
content/uploads/2021/07/U-I-50-21-Odlocba.pdf 

judgment  of  17 

June  2021,  U-I-50/21  https://www.us-rs.si/wp-

25 

 
Constitutional Court, judgment of 21 April 2022, U-I-70/21-8 http://www.us-rs.si/documents/a6/a4/u-
i-70-21.pdf.  

Constitutional  Court,  judgment  of  23  December  2021,  U-I-823/21  https://www.us-rs.si/zacasno- 
zadrzanje-izvrsevanja-drugega-do-cetrtega-odstavka-49-a-clena-in-drugega-do-petega-odstavka-49-b-
clena-zakona-o-organiziranosti-in-delu-v-policiji-uradni-list-rs-st-15-13-11-14-86-15-77/.  

Constitutional  Court, 
content/uploads/2021/06/U-I-462-18-Odlocba.pdf. 

judgment  of  3  June  2021,  U-I-462/18-45  https://www.us-rs.si/wp-

Constitutional  Court,  judgment  of  7  January  2021,  U-I-246/19-41  https://www.us-rs.si/wp-
content/uploads/2021/02/U-I-246-19-2.pdf. 

Constitutional  Court, 
content/uploads/2021/08/U-I-214-19-Odlocba.pdf.  

judgment  of  8 

July  2021,  U-I-214/19  https://www.us-rs.si/wp-

Council of Europe: Commissioner for Human Rights (2021), Memorandum on freedom of expression 
and  media  freedom  in  Slovenia,  4  June  2021  https://rm.coe.int/memorandum-on-freedom-of-
expression-and-media-freedom-in-slovenia/1680a2ae85. 

Council  of  Europe:  Committee  of  Ministers  (2010),  Recommendation  CM/Rec(2010)12  of  the 
Committee of Ministers to member states on judges: independence, efficiency and responsibilities. 

Council  of  Europe:  Platform  to  promote  the  protection  of  journalism  and  safety  of  journalists  – 
Slovenia https://fom.coe.int/en/pays/detail/11709580. 

Council  of  the  European  Union  (2021),  Council  Implementing  Decision  of  16  July  2021  on  the 
approval  of  the  assessment  of  the  recovery  and  resilience  plan  for  Slovenia  with  Annex 
https://data.consilium.europa.eu/doc/document/ST-10612-2021-ADD-1/en/pdf. 

Court of Audit (2022), Annual report 2021.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, judgment of 24 June 2019, Commission v. Poland, C-619/18, 
EU:C:2019:531. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  25  July  2018,  LM,  C-216/18  PPU, 
EU:C:2018:586. 

Court  of  Justice  of  the  European  Union,  judgment  of  5  July  2016,  Ognyanov,  C-614/14, 
EU:C:2016:514.  

Court of Justice of the European Union, order of 12 February 2019, RH, C-8/19, EU:C:2019:110. 

Delo  (2021),  Heads  of  police  administrations  and  stations  have  received  termination  decisions,  17 
November  2021  https://www.delo.si/novice/slovenija/olaj-zavraca-ocitke-o-kadrovskih-cistkah-in-
politizaciji-policije/. 

Directorate-General  for  Communication  (2022),  Flash  Eurobarometer  507:  businesses’  attitudes 
towards corruption in the EU. 

Directorate-General for Communication (2022), Special Eurobarometer 523: corruption. 

Dnevnik  (2021),  The  Government  also  blocks  the  appointments  of  supreme  and  district  state 
prosecutors,  2  December  2021  https://www.dnevnik.si/1042978247/slovenija/vlada-blokira-tudi-
imenovanja-vrhovnih-in-okroznih-tozilcev. 

European Commission (2020), 2020 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Slovenia. 

European Commission (2021), 2021 Rule of Law Report, Country Chapter on the rule of law situation 
in Slovenia. 

European Commission (2022), 2022 EU Justice Scoreboard. 

26 

 
European  Commission (2022),  Follow  up  to  the  European  Parliament  non-legislative  resolution  on 
Fundamental  rights  and  Rule  of  Law  in  Slovenia,  in  particular  the  delayed  nomination  of  EPPO 
prosecutors 
https://oeil.secure.europarl.europa.eu/oeil/popups/ficheprocedure.do?reference=2021/2978(RSP)&l=e
n. 

European Court of Human Rights, judgment of 28 August 2018, Vizgirda v. Slovenia, 59868/08. 

European Implementation Network (2022), Contribution from the European Implementation Network 
for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European  Network  of  National  Human  Rights  Institutions  (ENNHRI)  (2022),  Contribution  from 
ENNHRI for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

European Parliament (2021), Resolution of 16 December 2021 on fundamental rights and the rule of 
law  in  Slovenia,  in  particular  the  delayed  nomination  of  EPPO  prosecutors,  (2021/2978(RSP)) 
https://www.europarl.europa.eu/doceo/document/TA-9-2021-0512_EN.html. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office (2022), Letter to Commissioners Hahn and Reynders, 27 January 
2022. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office, Letter to Slovenian Minister for Justice, 9 July 2021. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office,  Press release: Slovenia’s Prosecutor General visits the EPPO 
in  Luxembourg,  27 January  2022  https://www.eppo.europa.eu/en/news/slovenias-prosecutor-general-
visits-eppo-luxembourg. 

European Public Prosecutor’s Office,  Statement from the European Chief Prosecutor with regard to 
Slovenia, 8 October 2021. 

Franet,  Peace  Institute  (2022),  Country  research  -  Legal  environment  and  space  of  civil  society 
organisations  in  supporting  fundamental  rights  –  Slovenia,  Vienna,  EU  Agency  for  Fundamental 
Rights https://fra.europa.eu/en/publication/2022/civic-space-2022-update#country-related.  

GRECO  (2020),  Fifth  Evaluation  Round:  Compliance  Report  on  Slovenia  on  on  preventing 
corruption  and  promoting  integrity  in  central  governments  (top  executive  functions)  and  law 
enforcement  agencies,  5  October  2021  https://rm.coe.int/fifth-evaluation-round-preventing-
corruption-and-promoting-integrity-i/1680a40264. 

Judges’  Association  (2021),  Press  release  of  19  March  2021  https://sodnisko-drustvo.si/izjava-za-
javnost/. 

Judicial  Council:  President  (2021),  Letter  to  Commissioner  Reynders:  Resources  for  the  Judicial 
Council and Judiciary of the Republic of Slovenia - 2022 Budget Amendments, 17 November 2021. 

Liberties (2022), Contribution from Liberties (Peace Institute) for the 2022 Rule of Law Report. 

Mapping Media Freedom, Country profile Slovenia, https://www.mappingmediafreedom.org/. 

MFRR (2021), MFRR partners raise serious concerns over suspension of funding to Slovenian Press 
Agency 
https://www.rcmediafreedom.eu/News/MFRR-partners-raise-serious-concerns-over-
suspension-of-funding-to-Slovenian-Press-Agency. 

National  Review  Commission  (2022),  Contribution  from  the  National  Review  Commission  for  the 
2022 Rule of Law Report, 19 March 2022. 

OECD: Working Group on Bribery (2021), Implementing the OECD Anti-Bribery Convention Phase 
4 Report: Slovenia, 11 March 2021. 

Ostro  (2021),  Journalists  are  leaving  STA  due  to  insecure  situation,  15  September  2021 
https://www.ostro.si/si/razkrinkavanje/objave/novinarji-zaradi-negotovih-razmer-zapuscajo-sta. 

Peace  Institute  (2020),  Study:  Hostile  narrative  in  online  media  and  environment  in  Slovenia 
https://www.mirovni-institut.si/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/Sovrazni-narativi-v-spletnih-medijih-in-
spletni-komunikaciji-s-CIP.pdf. 

27 

 
Republic  of  Slovenia  (2020),  Budget  of  the  Republic  of  Slovenia  for  2022,  Official  Journal  of  27 
November 
https://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2020-174-03087-OB~P002-
0000.PDF. 

174/2020 

2020, 

Republic of Slovenia (2021), Amendments to the Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022, Official 
Journal  of  1.12.2021,  187/2021  https://www.uradni-list.si/files/RS_-2021-187-03711-OB~P002-
0000.PDF. 

Republic of Slovenia (2022), Input from Slovenia for the 2022 Rule of Law Report.  

(2021),  The 

RTV 
https://www.rtvslo.si/slovenija/prvi-krsilec-poslanskega-eticnega-kodeksa-je-jani-ivanusa-sns-dobil-
je-opomin/583591.  

the  Parliamentary  Code  of  Ethics,  9  June  2021 

first  violator  of 

Slovenian Government (2021), Draft Amending Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2022 and the 
Draft Budget of the Republic of Slovenia for 2023, 24 June 2021, https://www.gov.si/novice/2021-06-
24-dnevni-red-83-redne-seje-vlade-republike-
slovenije/?msclkid=c8ff3885ab4911ec87ecb592c6c8d081. 

Slovenian  Government  (2022),  Coalition  agreement,  24  May  2022  https://gibanjesvoboda.si/wp-
content/uploads/2022/05/Koalicijski-dogovor-2022-2026-Programski-del-18.5.2022.pdf.  

Slovenian  Ministry  of  Finance 
https://www.gov.si/assets/ministrstva/MF/Proracun-direktorat/Drzavni-proracun/Sprejeti-
proracun/Spremembe-2022/Izpisi-spremembe-2022/SSP2022_POS.pdf. 

(2021),  Budget  2021 

(amendments): 

specific  par. 

Slovenian Ministry of Interior (2021), Overview of work police for the first semester 2021, 12 August 
2021. 

Slovenian Ministry of Justice (2022), Written contribution from the State Prosecutorial Council and 
the Ministry of Justice following the country visit to Slovenia. 

Slovenian  Parliament  (2022),  Research  Paper  No.  34/2021,  Peršolja,  B.,  Kožuh,  J.,  Zeilhofer,  N., 
Žagar, 
https://fotogalerija.dz-
rs.si/datoteke/Publikacije/Zborniki_RN/2021/Tretje_(nacionalno)_letno_porocilo_o_vladavini_prava_
v_Evropski_uniji_(odgovor_Drzavnega_zbora).pdf.    

K. 

Slovenian  Parliament  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  Parliament  following  the  country  visit  to 
Slovenia. 

Slovenian 
https://www.policija.si/images/stories/Statistika/LetnaPorocila/PDF/LetnoPorocilo2021.pdf  

(2022), 

Police 

2021 

Report 

STA (2022), RTV Slovenija staff protest against pressure, demand full editorial autonomy, 7 March 
2022  https://english.sta.si/3010619/rtv-slovenija-staff-protest-against-pressure-demand-full-editorial-
autonomy.  

State Prosecutor General (2022), Letter to the European Chief Prosecutor, 20 January 2022. 

State  Prosecutorial  Council  (2021),  Conclusions  of  1  June  2021  https://www.drzavnotozilski-
svet.si/files/Sporocila%20za%20javnost/izjava_za_javnost_evropska_delegirana_tozilca_1_6_2021.p
df. 

State  Prosecutorial  Council  (2021),  Statement  of  9  July  2021  https://www.drzavnotozilski-
svet.si/files/Sporocila%20za%20javnost/izjava_za_javnost_ponovni_javni_poziv_evropska_delegiran
a_tozilca.pdf. 

State Prosecutorial Council (2022), Written contribution from the State Prosecutorial Council and the 
Ministry of Justice following the country visit to Slovenia. 

Supreme Court (2021), Annual Report on efficiency and effectiveness of courts in 2020, 21 April 2021 
https://sodisce.si/mma_bin.php?static_id=2021050412351310. 

28 

 
Supreme Court (2021), Report on cases with statutes of limitation in 2020 - reasons and actions by 
the judicial administration. 

Supreme  Court 
https://www.sodisce.si/mma_bin2.php?nid=2022030214041246&static_id=2022030211275974. 

(2022),  Opening 

2  March 

judicial 

2022, 

year 

the 

of 

2022 

Supreme  Court  (2022),  Written  contribution  from  the  Supreme  Court  following  the  country  visit  to 
Slovenia. 

Supreme  State  Prosecution 
rs.si/files/documents/Letno%20poroc%CC%8Cilo%20DT%20za%20leto%202021.pdf. 

2021  Report, 

20  April 

(2021), 

2022 

https://www.dt-

Supreme  State  Prosecution  (2022),  Press  release:  Data  of  the  Supreme  State  Prosecution  on 
prosecution activities for Article 135 of the Criminal Code in matters where the victim is the Prime 
https://www.dt-rs.si/158/podatki-vrhovnega-dr%C5%BEavnega-
Minister, 
to%C5%BEilstva-rs-o-aktivnosti-pregona-po-135-%C4%8Dlenu-kz-1-v-zadevah-v-katerih-je-
o%C5%A1kodovanec-predsednik-vlade-rs-3. 

14  April 

2022 

Transparency International (2021), Corruption Perceptions Index 2020. 

29 

 
 
Annex II: Country visit to Slovenia 

The Commission services held virtual meetings in March 2022 with: 

  Agency for Communication Networks and Services (AKOS) 
  Association of Journalists  
  Association of Journalists and Publicists (Ms Irena Zagajšek) 
  Bar Association 
  Chamber of Commerce: Media Chamber 
  Commission for the Prevention of Corruption 
  Constitutional Court 
  Court of Audit 
  Faculty of Media (Full prof. Matevž Tomšič) 
  General  Police  Directorate  (Economic  Crime  division),  National  Bureau  of  Investigation 

(NPU) and Ministry of Interior (International Affairs Directorate) 

  Human Rights Ombudsperson  
 
Judges’ Association  
 
Judicial Council 
  Ministry of Culture  
  Ministry of Justice 
  Ministry of Public Administration  
  National NGO umbrella network (CNVOS) 
  National Review Commission 
  Parliament Secretariat 
  Peace Institute  
  Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Director of Radio 
  Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Programme Council (President) 
  Radio-television Slovenia (RTV): Supervisory Council (President) 
  Slovenian Press Agency (STA) 
  State  Prosecution  (State  Prosecutor  General,  Supreme  State  Prosecution  Office,  Specialised 

State Prosecution Office) 
  State Prosecutorial Council 
  Supreme Court 
  Transparency International Slovenia 
  Union of Slovenian Journalists 

* The Commission also met the following organisations in a number of horizontal meetings:  

  Amnesty International  
  Article 19  
  Civil Liberties Union for Europe 
  Civil Society Europe  
  European Centre for Press and Media Freedom  
  European Civic Forum 
  European Federation of Journalists  
  European Partnership for Democracy 
  European Youth Forum 
  Free Press Unlimited 
  Human Rights Watch  
 
 

ILGA Europe 
International Federation for Human Rights (FIDH) 

30 

 
 
International Press Institute 

 
  Open Society European Policy Institute (OSEPI) 
  Osservatorio Balcani e Caucaso Transeuropa  
  Philea 
  Reporters Without Borders 
  Transparency International Europe 

31